Support NeoGAF

[chillybright]

I just find it particularly amusing that on this board, discussion on religion usually devolves into offence taking and politeness policing towards the atheists, instead of actually discussion on the fundamental differences between atheists and "believers".

Or I guess there is no discussion in the first place since both parties have already made up their minds.

 

[Laughing Banana]

How come some of you can be so arrogant as to make your own reasoning as to why Mark decides he's no longer an Atheist? I mean, do you know him personally? Are you familiar with his religious or personal life? Are you intimate with his inner thoughts? Who are we to decide for ourselves that whatever reason he decides to enter religion is the reason we invented in our own heads, just because presumptions?

 

[TemplaerDude]

I don't know why anyone would really care.

 

[Air]

I just find it particularly amusing that on this board, discussion on religion usually devolves into offence taking and politeness policing towards the atheists, instead of actually discussion on the fundamental differences between atheists and "believers".

Or I guess there is no discussion in the first place since both parties have already made up their minds.

As I said to another poster, how exactly are you going to have a conversation when somebody is completely dismissive of your position? These threads usually go "I hate x" and "Not all of x is like that" and continued mudslinging. The "politeness policing" is so that we can actually have the discussion on fundamental differences between atheists and "believers", but seeing your quotes around "believers", I'd wager you missed that point

 

[HardRojo]

It is important because a good part of the population is still devoted to whatever religion they practice. I hope that over time religion becomes a minor "issue" and eventually disappears, the world will probably die before that happens though, which is a shame.

 

[Henkka]

The notion that it's rude or insensitive to criticize religion is just a defense mechanism for bad ideas.

 

[chillybright]

As I said to another poster, how exactly are you going to have a conversation when somebody is completely dismissive of your position? These threads usually go "I hate x" and "Not all of x is like that" and continued mudslinging. The "politeness policing" is so that we can actually have the discussion on fundamental differences between atheists and "believers", but seeing you're quotes around "believers", I'd wager you missed that point

wow, ok. I wasn't expecting someone would take offense on the quotation marks. I used them because I wasn't sure what the correct word would be. "Religious people" is two words, and "Christians" or "Jewish" only covers certain religion. Some also thinks that atheism is also a belief. I was annoyed by the choice of words since it might offend someone. Ironically it turns out it isn't about the words this time.

I hope this post doesn't offend someone again.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Please be into killing chickens in closet..

Please be into killing chickens in closet...

The only acceptable alternative to atheism. Or worshipping all possible goes at once

 

[Foffy]

I just find it particularly amusing that on this board, discussion on religion usually devolves into offence taking and politeness policing towards the atheists, instead of actually discussion on the fundamental differences between atheists and "believers".

Or I guess there is no discussion in the first place since both parties have already made up their minds.

You cannot convince a person of false views. This has actually been studied.

So trying to show the sheer incompatibility of theology to a theologian is like trying to tell a Pizzagater that it's a conspiracy theory: you're wasting your time. If you think of the mind as clay, it's been "molded" already, and for many people, the mold is hardened.

There's not much to discuss. Most religions depend upon dualism, and dualism is no longer a sound, accountable position. This fact is either accepted or rejected, and that alone puts people in camps.

I think it wouldn't be too farfetched to assume Zuckerberg now believes in something dualistic, like an ego beyond the body.

 

[Air]

wow, ok. I wasn't expecting someone would take offense on the quotation marks. I used them because I wasn't sure what the correct word would be. "Religious people" is two words, and "Christians" or "Jewish" only covers certain religion. Some also thinks that atheism is also a belief. I was annoyed by the choice of words since it might offend someone. Ironically it turns out it isn't about the words this time.

I hope this post doesn't offend someone again.

I didn't take offense to the quotes, but putting them on in the context you wrote made it read disparingly. If that wasn't the case I apologize for the snark, but your post still missed the point of people taking issue with the lack of tact in the comments.

 

[chillybright]

I didn't take offense to the quotes, but putting them on in the context you wrote made it read disparingly. If that wasn't the case I apologize for the snark, but your post still missed the point of people taking issue with the lack of tact in the comments.

It's fine. No need to apologize.

There were quite a few calm discussions about the nature and consequences of religion a few pages ago. It was when the politeness police came, ignored them and cherrypicked a few other posts, the discussion came into halt and turned into "arrogance accusing" from both sides.

 

[ThePrequelsSuck]

Good for him.

There is nothing wrong with being religious, contrary to what smug fedora-tipping atheist Redditors will tell you.

 

[NandoGip]

If he's being honest: whatever? Good for him.

What's most likely?: some pr person made him say that so his image is better to the mostly religious public.

Respecting others faith is part of being a good person, but let's be honest, being an athiest is looked down upon in society still.

I don't believe in any religion, but I do the same thing as Zuckerberg. I keep my mouth shut and keep it moving.

 

[Nickovic]

Good for him.

There is nothing wrong with being religious, contrary to what smug fedora-tipping atheist Redditors will tell you.

I dunno, this post comes across as pretty smug.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Most of us worship and devote ourselves to the belief of money.

He doesn't need money anymore so is trying to give his life new spiritual purpose.

Like those scientology assholes, they all rich. Need something else to strive for.

 

[Grug]

The "atheists are arrogant/worse than religious people" mantra is so well choreographed these days that I am just about cynical enough to believe it is being drilled in churches/synagogues/mosques as some sort of mass PR exercise.

A boom in secularism is a much bigger political/economic/cultural threat to the religious hegemony in particular states than other minor religions are.

As an aside, imagine if someone said "Jewish is a synonym for arrogant".

 

[Milly Osworth]

I don't see how posts like this aren't considered elitist and offensive.

Personally I'm an atheist, but how is this not offensive to the vast majority who are? Especially those who take it very seriously?

Edit-



This as well. So anybody who doesn't share your view is insane?

Insane is a bit much, but I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and ignorant.

 

[Rentahamster]

Atheist is just another word for "arrogant". How can we as inconsequential human beings say for a fact there is no God. When we don't know anything, really.

How can we as inconsequential human beings say for a fact that there is a God, when we don't know anything, really?

An argument without evidence is no argument at all.

 

[Henkka]

If atheists are arrogant, I don't see how theists aren't 99% just as arrogant by the same reasoning.

A Christian by necessity believes that Muhammad was a false prophet. All Hindus believe that Mormons have no clue what's really going on in the universe. And so on.

Theists reject 99% of religions, everything except their own. Atheists just go full 100%, those rascals.

 

[Future]

How can we as inconsequential human beings say for a fact that there is a God, when we don't know anything, really?

An argument without evidence is no argument at all.

Hard argument to make with faith is about belief. No one knows for a fact there is a god, but that doesn't matter because many believe it. No current evidence is needed besides religious text and teachings that have been around for many years that you can choose to believe or not

 

[typist]

Not caring enough to have researched Zuckerberg, I'll interpret this as: "I'm no longer a strong atheist" and "religion is important not because it is historically accurate but because of the role it plays in society." Maybe he's become a genuine bible thumping Christian though, who knows, who cares? The debate hinges on logic, not celebrity endorsements

 

[Odrion]

yeah prepare to see a lot of neoliberal technocrats heel turn towards republicanism. especially if the dnc starts to strongly tie together both economic and identity politics

 

[ZehDon]

This thread is terrific.

... As an aside, imagine if someone said "Jewish is a synonym for arrogant".

Well, atheist isn't a race. For a better analogy, try and imagine if someone said "I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and igno- "

Insane is a bit much, but I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and ignorant.

Oh.

The "atheists are arrogant/worse than religious people" mantra is so well choreographed these days that I am just about cynical enough to believe it is being drilled in churches/synagogues/mosques as some sort of mass PR exercise...

I think this thread demonstrates that it's no conspiracy, it's simply a by-product. A few decades of a singular group proclaiming loud-and-proud that the brains of everyone who don't hold identical beliefs to them are literally malfunctioning, and that only people who share the same exact beliefs as the proclaimer are correct human beings. I believe an argument could be made that arrogant is actually a generous term for this.

 

[Yoshi]

It's not important to me if Zuckerberg believes in some magical beings, but I don't understand the question regarding christmas. Christmas has a long tradition before christianity and it is celebrated in numerous different ways that often have nothing to do with chistianity whatsoever. Heck, even in Japan some people celebrate christmas nowadays.

I'm as atheist as it gets (I think it is a dumb idea to believe a creature like Jahwe exists and that it is almost certain that the specific Jahwe creature does not exist [and has never existed], and I would certainly not miss religion, if all religions vanished from earth immediately), but I celebrate christmas with my family each year (and besides my cousin, who is not always with us on christmas, every single person I celebrate with is an atheist). Not a single mention of anything christian here, just coming together with the family, having nice dinner, giving presents to each others, having nice chats and just using the time to be loving to each other.

Some people may not celebrate christmas, but this is not necessarily tied to their believes (in fact, the only person I know who doesn't is actually religious, it's a Jehova witness).

This thread is terrific.

Well, atheist isn't a race. For a better analogy, try and imagine if someone said "I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and igno- "

Jew is not a race either, at least if you are not speaking on behalf of the NSDAP.

 

[RedHill]

Also these are the worst type of Atheists. Like why is it surprising for a non-believer to wish somebody a Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah?

Christmas is celebrated by most people that don't celebrate an alternative holiday. It isn't even religious anymore. Whoever commented that is an idiot

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Hard argument to make with faith is about belief. No one knows for a fact there is a god, but that doesn't matter because many believe it. No current evidence is needed besides religious text and teachings that have been around for many years that you can choose to believe or not

See, I don't buy any non-sequitur bullshit like "you can't argue with faith" and "no one knows if there is a god or not". Wrong. There is no magical, super natural "god(s)" because, by definition, super natural things don't exist. And if religious people actually believed this hypocritical PR they either knowingly or unwittingly are rattling off in defense of religion, then I guess they should just stop proselytizing, promoting, and killing in the name of this faith they are so sure will flourish all on its own. Because, after all, they say you can't argue with that which people believe to be true.

I then ask them how religions came to dominate the cultural landscape, to which they predictably have no response.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The "atheists are arrogant/worse than religious people" mantra is so well choreographed these days that I am just about cynical enough to believe it is being drilled in churches/synagogues/mosques as some sort of mass PR exercise.

A boom in secularism is a much bigger political/economic/cultural threat to the religious hegemony in particular states than other minor religions are.

As an aside, imagine if someone said "Jewish is a synonym for arrogant".

Imagine someone who said that gay people are just arrogantly flouting the authority of god what sort of person would say something like that? Probably one of those awful atheists I bet.

 

[Magwik]

Good for him, really. As someone who doesn't hold any beliefs myself I would love nothing more to be able to believe in something more and something greater, an afterlife where my soul can rest. Finding your way back to faith must be one hell of a journey.

 

[pottuvoi]

I wonder why it is so hard for some to grasp the idea of simply not having a belief for a certain deity, when there are huge amount of deities which they do not believe in.
How many theist have heard or read about Zeus, Odin, Perkele, Eru and think them as nothing else than works of fiction.

 

[LionPride]

Insane is a bit much, but I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and ignorant.

Oh so you're just an asshole. Got it.

 

[nekkid]

Insane is a bit much, but I view people that are religious at least brainwashed and ignorant.

That's ironically a very ignorant statement.

 

[Adam_Vania]

it's religious that espouse having it all figured out.

no, i think that is science's line. hence the "we don't see God so he must not exist" line.

there is a long history of questioning in religion. the fantasy that they have it all figured out seems to be strong among atheists. if they were more informed, more well-read about religion, they would know this to be demonstrably false.

there are rich histories of commentary and debate for every religion, there are famous conflicts that have sprouted new religions splintered off from the main ones (Catholicism -> Protestantism, Hinduism -> Buddhism). all it takes is a quick historical inventory to see first hand that it's not a monolithic thing, that internal debates have been doing on for millennium. this clashes with their convenient pigeonhole of what religion is so for many atheists chose to just remain ignorant and hold onto those convenient fantasies. ironically behaving like the people they detest.

 

[Drifters]

He met Morgan Freeman didn't he?

 

[Milly Osworth]

That's ironically a very ignorant statement.

How so?

 

[chillybright]

I mean religion is literatlly about unconditionally believing something without empirical evidence. So saying it is a form of brainwashing is not farfetched. Not to mention most popular religions have been used for the exact purpose in the past and present.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

I'm still looking for the part where he says he's no longer an atheist. All I see is him dodging the question and saying he was raised Jewish.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

no, i think that is science's line. hence the "we don't see God so he must not exist" line.

I don't like that line. It implies lack of faith / disbelief in god is based on a lack of physical presence.

 

[Airola]

I'm still looking for the part where he says he's no longer an atheist. All I see is him dodging the question and saying he was raised Jewish.

"Aren't you an atheist?"
"No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

"Aren’t you an atheist?"
"No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

"No longer" an atheist. Doesn't sound like he ever was going by the wording.

 

[Airola]

"No longer" an atheist. Doesn't sound like he ever was going by the wording.

Mark has been open about his atheism. He had "Jewish atheist" as his religion on his own Facebook page.

As he has said he is an atheist, don't you think he saying he has questioned things is about his atheistic beliefs?

I don't understand what's so hard to understand or accept in this.

 

[rambis]

How come some of you can be so arrogant as to make your own reasoning as to why Mark decides he's no longer an Atheist? I mean, do you know him personally? Are you familiar with his religious or personal life? Are you intimate with his inner thoughts? Who are we to decide for ourselves that whatever reason he decides to enter religion is the reason we invented in our own heads, just because presumptions?

Mark has been open about his atheism. He had "Jewish atheist" as his religion on his own Facebook page.

As he has said he is an atheist, don't you think he saying he has questioned things is about his atheistic beliefs?

I don't understand what's so hard to understand or accept in this.

Basically, this is GAF.

 

[Pyramid head]

no, i think that is science's line. hence the "we don't see God so he must not exist" line.

there is a long history of questioning in religion. the fantasy that they have it all figured out seems to be strong among atheists. if they were more informed, more well-read about religion, they would know this to be demonstrably false.

there are rich histories of commentary and debate for every religion, there are famous conflicts that have sprouted new religions splintered off from the main ones (Catholicism -> Protestantism, Hinduism -> Buddhism). all it takes is a quick historical inventory to see first hand that it's not a monolithic thing, that internal debates have been doing on for millennium. this clashes with their convenient pigeonhole of what religion is so for many atheists chose to just remain ignorant and hold onto those convenient fantasies. ironically behaving like the people they detest.

You're understanding of what science even is, seems to be ass-backwards at a fundamental level. The 'line' is more, "Some people have a belief in a being which stems from texts written during a period in history when even the most scholarly people on the plant knew less about the actual nature of reality than the average child does today. What the fuck does this have to do with science?"
Theists are welcome to debate their scriptures and dogmas 'til the cows come home but it's not science's 'job' to ascertain whether or not magical beings exist until there's even the most remote reason to assume they might.
Science is mankind's attempt to fill gaps in our knowledge by looking at what we don't know, and trying to figure shit out. In the case of all the hundreds of various gods which have 'existed' at one point or another, there's simply nothing to look at.

Science is literally the opposite of "having it all figured out|".

 

[RoadHazard]

That's ironically a very ignorant statement.

Not really.

I don't like that line. It implies lack of faith / disbelief in god is based on a lack of physical presence.

I don't like the opposite line. It implies blind faith/belief in god is based on absolutely nothing.

You can never prove a negative (you cannot prove fairies don't exist, for example), so the burden of proof is on the person claiming that X exists. If there is zero evidence for the existence of X, the only rational position is to assume that it doesn't and live your life under that assumption. Until the day when such evidence is produced, of course. Then you should be ready to reevaluate your position.

 

[Rentahamster]

Hard argument to make with faith is about belief. No one knows for a fact there is a god, but that doesn't matter because many believe it. No current evidence is needed besides religious text and teachings that have been around for many years that you can choose to believe or not

No, it's pretty easy. Faith is not evidence.

 

[Yoshi]

no, i think that is science's line. hence the "we don't see God so he must not exist" line.

there is a long history of questioning in religion. the fantasy that they have it all figured out seems to be strong among atheists. if they were more informed, more well-read about religion, they would know this to be demonstrably false.

there are rich histories of commentary and debate for every religion, there are famous conflicts that have sprouted new religions splintered off from the main ones (Catholicism -> Protestantism, Hinduism -> Buddhism). all it takes is a quick historical inventory to see first hand that it's not a monolithic thing, that internal debates have been doing on for millennium. this clashes with their convenient pigeonhole of what religion is so for many atheists chose to just remain ignorant and hold onto those convenient fantasies. ironically behaving like the people they detest.

The questioning that leads to splintering of religions is hardly based on reason though, at least for the abrahamitic religions.

Also I don't see who argues "I cannot see god, therefore a god cannot exist". This certainly is not a common point of view for atheists who come from a scientific perspective. At least not in the literal sense, since otherwise such a person would have to deny the existence of atomic radiation as well. However, there exists nothing in nature that we are aware of that necessitates, implies or makes likely the existence of a god. This is a problem with the hypothesis a god exists. Regarding Jahwe the picture is even bleaker, considering that many claims in the bible are absolutely clearly wrong, others get put under the rug by believers and what remains is a cherry picked fantastical creature that has absolutely no basis,

 

[Netherscourge]

I think this is clear as day.

Facebookism is coming.

And Mark is declaring HIMSELF it's god.

Bow down to your savior.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

There is some wiggle room in his response.

I smell pragmatism.

Bro..."last refuge of the scoundrel". Such an easy set-up!

 

[Dongs Macabre]

How can we as inconsequential human beings say for a fact that there is a God, when we don't know anything, really?

An argument without evidence is no argument at all.

There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a god.

I don't need a god to be a good person (or at least try).

For me, that's a compelling enough argument.

 

[Rentahamster]

There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a god.

I don't need a god to be a good person (or at least try).

For me, that's a compelling enough argument.

Yep. Sometimes I wonder at people who make the argument that the only thing holding them back from a murderous rampage is the existance of a god, instead of, you know, basic human decency.

Fortunately I don't really see that online much nowadays.

 

[Grug]

Yep. Sometimes I wonder at people who make the argument that the only thing holding them back from a murderous rampage is the existance of a god, instead of, you know, basic human decency.

Fortunately I don't really see that online much nowadays.

Yeah, it's terrifying when people say "without God, there is no morality and everyone would just go around raping and murdering each other".

If the only thing stopping them from doing those things is the fear of comeuppance in the "afterlife" then I am very grateful they stumbled into religion. Doesn't really paint a good picture of them as a person though. For the rest of us, basic human empathy and decency seems to suffice.