Support NeoGAF

[Korey]

Christians: do you get offended when you see someone "mocking" a scientologist, such as Tom Cruise?

If not, you might see where atheists are coming from.

Atheists only believe in one less deity than you do, and may basically consider your belief system no less ridiculous than a scientologist's. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Dice]

The entire point was to provide them with an example of an(other) unproven supernatural entity that one would assume they don't believe in (unicorn, fairy, Thor...), ask them to take a hard look at it and at their god, and then explain why they shouldn't be on equal footing. So yes, they would most likely find the idea of believing in unicorns/fairies/Thor ridiculous. And no, they would not consider them to be on equal footing. That's the entire point. It would be my turn to say "seriously, how can you not get this?", here, really...

I have repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with the original presentation of the unicorn thing.

 

[Log4Girlz]

My imaginary unicorn god is better than yours because she has a dildo on her head instead of a horn. I like to glue silver dollars to the sidewalk and visualize her charging people who try to pick them up.

Oh man, that made me laugh.

 

[daviyoung]

Ugh, grow the fuck up atheists.

 

[Dice]

My phrasing is not equivalent. If I had said

"Christians are fucking ridiculous, they believe the messiah will return on a unicorn"
"I can't believe that Christians believe in a Unicorn GOD LOL"
"Mohammed rode to Mecca on a unicorn!"

Then you may have a point.

Oh, it wasn't projecting because it was a question and technically it was even an open one. Passive-aggressive bullshit. Whatever.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Oh, it wasn't projecting because it was a question and technically it was even an open one.

Well, yes.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Ugh, grow the fuck up atheists.

Not sure if serious.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Ugh, grow the fuck up atheists.

How mature.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Ugh, grow the fuck up atheists.

In what sense?

 

[MrHicks]

they can't back it up
thats why its "faith"

faith is just a fancy word for "theres no evidence but imma believe it cause i trust its true"

so stupid but what ya gonna do?

then theres those believers who have had "personal experiences" with god
voices in their heads AKA insanity
or their prayed and suddenly everything goes well in their life and...."thats god doing it!!!"

ad infinitum

 

[cajunator]

The entire point was to provide them with an example of an(other) unproven supernatural entity that one would assume they don't believe in (unicorn, fairy, Thor...), ask them to take a hard look at it and at their god, and then have them explain why they shouldn't be on equal footing.
So yes, they would most likely find the idea of believing in unicorns/fairies/Thor ridiculous. And no, they would not consider them to be on equal footing. That's the entire point. It would be my turn to say "seriously, how can you not get this?", here, really...

God and all of those things do exist. Both in a book and the hearts and minds of people. So in a way yes both are the same.

 

[Jackson]

they can't back it up
thats why its "faith"

faith is just a fancy word for "theres no evidence but imma believe it cause i trust its true"

so stupid but what ya gonna do?

Can you explain to me how that same line of reasoning cannot be applied to atheism? Is there empirical proof God doesn't exist? Can you link me please?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Can you explain to me how that same line of reasoning cannot be applied to atheism? Is there empirical proof God doesn't exist? Can you link me please?

One line of reasoning takes a skeptical approach, one does not. I will leave it up to you to decide which one.

 

[Satyamdas]

Really, why is it that some just can't resist playing passive-aggressive games insulting others with the way they engage them? Zaptruder has made many posts here and done pretty well about it. And as I said at the start of the thread, I like the way Monocle does things. Have you seen his posts? He never sugarcoats anything, but he also doesn't say things in such a way as to belittle others because of their beliefs.

My imaginary unicorn god is better than yours because she has a dildo on her head instead of a horn. I like to glue silver dollars to the sidewalk and visualize her charging people who try to pick them up.

I lol'd.

 

[MrHicks]

Can you explain to me how that same line of reasoning cannot be applied to atheism? Is there empirical proof God doesn't exist? Can you link me please?

this again?
come on man

in the history of mankind there have been millions (or close to it lol) of gods
NONE of them can be "disproven"

 

[Uchip]

God and all of those things do exist. Both in a book and the hearts and minds of people. So in a way yes both are the same.

 

[Erigu]

I have repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with the original presentation of the unicorn thing.

My bad.

 

[Jackson]

One line of reasoning takes a skeptical approach, one does not. I will leave it up to you to decide which one.

All religious people were never skeptics before becoming religious? No true Scotsman ftw?

 

[Log4Girlz]

All religious people were never skeptics before becoming religious? No true Scotsman ftw?

Certainly not skeptical of religion. There is no empirical proof of a god's existence or non-existence, so why believe in any given faith or interpretation of god?

 

[Zzoram]

All religious people were never skeptics before becoming religious? No true Scotsman ftw?

The point is that default position on things is always non-belief until evidence shows otherwise.

You don't believe in fairies because there is no evidence. They COULD exist, but almost anything COULD exist. The point is only things that have supporting evidence should be considered, otherwise we'd be crippled by believing in infinite things at once.

 

[Jackson]

Certainly not skeptical of religion. There is no empirical proof of a god's existence or non-existence, so why believe in any given faith or interpretation of god?

How do you know they weren't skeptical of religion before they became religious? Did you talk to all of them? Why not believe?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why not?

Because there is no empirical evidence to prove or disprove its existence, which puts it on the same standing as other antiquated concepts. To actually embrace a system of thought without any foundation in reality is worrisome to a skeptic.

 

[DCKing]

Why not?

There is no empirical proof of a god's existence or non-existence

If lack of proof was any reason to believe anything at all, I'm back to Bigfoot, the Tooth Fairy and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Spoiler

j/k Do not offend his noodly appendage

 

[Log4Girlz]

How do you know they weren't skeptical of religion before they became religious? Did you talk to all of them? Why not believe?

You edited, no fair.

First, let us agree on a definition of skeptic.

" a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual."

Ok, I think that's a pretty good definition. Tell me if you disagree. All religions claim they are factual. There is no empirical evidence to support any religious claims. So, I think its fair to say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Which would automatically dismiss religion in general.

 

[cajunator]

The flying spaghetti monster is an absolutely awesome thing to believe in dont you think?

 

[Log4Girlz]

The flying spaghetti monster is an absolutely awesome thing to believe in dont you think?

I'm debating becoming a Pastafarian or Unicornean. Not sure what to believe in yet.

 

[cajunator]

I believe in everything.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I believe in everything.

You are converting me.

 

[EviLore]

Why not believe?

In what? God? Which one, exactly? Yours? Why yours over any other? If not yours, then why another over yours?

 

[Jackson]

You edited, no fair.

First, let us agree on a definition of skeptic.

" a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual."

Ok, I think that's a pretty good definition. Tell me if you disagree. All religions claim they are factual. There is no empirical evidence to support any religious claims. So, I think its fair to say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Which would automatically dismiss religion in general.

I have no problems with this line of reasoning.

In what? God? Which one, exactly? Yours? Why yours over any other? If not yours, then why another over yours?

In whatever you want. It's your choice to believe what you want, how you want.

 

[cutmeamango]

In what? God? Which one, exactly? Yours?

You'll go far with tha- oh, carry on!

 

[DCKing]

Can you explain to me how that same line of reasoning cannot be applied to atheism? Is there empirical proof God doesn't exist? Can you link me please?

1. Posit existence of something
2. Declare lack of evidence disproving it exists
3. Therefore something exists

4. Therefore God, unicorns, UFOs, invisible teapots, The Matrix

It is of course false to flat out say "God doesn't exist" as much as saying "we're not in The Matrix". It cannot be disproven. Both are however so unlikely that it is absurd to think otherwise. If you claim something exists, it is up to you to convince others that it factually exists.

 

[Jackson]

1. Posit existence of something
2. Declare lack of evidence disproving it exists
3. Therefore something exists

4. Therefore God, unicorns, UFOs, invisible teapots, The Matrix

It is of course false to flat out say "God doesn't exist" as much as saying "we're not in The Matrix". It cannot be disproven. Both are however so unlikely that it is absurd to think otherwise. If you claim something exists, it is up to you to convince others that it factually exists.

Why is it so unlikely and absurd to you that God exists? Is there factual evidence that proves the unlikelihood and absurdity of it?

 

[Monocle]

Ugh, grow the fuck up atheists.

What does this pertain to? The question posed by the OP? Individuals in the thread?

 

[AzureNightmare]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold? hmm? food for thought isn't it?

 

[T-0800]

They were indoctrinated to believe it since birth.

Hmmmm....I became a Christian at 18 and my family has no church history. At all.

Anyway I don't think GAF is a good place to ask such a question but that is just my opinion. Of course.

 

[Monocle]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold? hmm? food for thought isn't it?

Why don't strangers loan me large sums of money? I always promise to pay them back.

 

[RagnarokX]

Can you explain to me how that same line of reasoning cannot be applied to atheism? Is there empirical proof God doesn't exist? Can you link me please?

You're confusing atheism with gnostic atheism.

Gnostic Theism: I know there is a god.
Agnostic Theism: There probably is a god, but I can't know for sure.
Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no god.
Agnostic Atheism: There probably isn't a god, but I can't know for sure.

Agnostic Atheism is the scientific-minded atheist's stance, since science can't disprove things that have no empirical evidence. It's not a religion because it's based on science and probability. To be scientific you must be skeptical.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold? hmm? food for thought isn't it?

Opiate's post doesn't directly answer this (it isn't addressing the belittling of religious people, but then this thread isn't concerned with that either), but it might point you in the right direction regarding this thread's existence. For more info, I recommend reading the entire thread.

I can give a huge number of reasons.

1) I am interested in what everyone does. I want to understand the world, and religious convictions are an important part of the condition of the world, both historically and currently.

2) I honestly want to find God. While there may be some exceptions to this rule, many atheists would vastly prefer that a God exists -- a God which cares about us, provides an afterlife to the devout, and so forth. Instead, I believe I live on an unremarkable planet, adrift in a vast universe without any real purpose. I desperately want to believe in a God, but not simply because it's warmer and more convenient to do so.

3) Theists, in aggregate, have an extremely strong effect on the lives of atheists. The world has been shaped in enormous ways by religion (countless wars have been fought over religious conviction, cultural mores exist as a consequence of religion, etc), and so it's impossible to be an "individual atheist." I am not an island. Religious people affect me whether they intend to or not.

 

[Jackson]

You're confusing atheism with gnostic atheism.

Gnostic Theism: I know there is a god.
Agnostic Theism: There probably is a god, but I can't know for sure.
Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no god.
Agnostic Atheism: There probably isn't a god, but I can't know for sure.

Agnostic Atheism is the scientific-minded atheist's stance, since science can't disprove things that have no empirical evidence. It's not a religion because it's based on science and probability. To be scientific you must be skeptical.

Yes, I understand that atheism isn't a religion. Thank you.

 

[daviyoung]

What does this pertain to? The question posed by the OP? Individuals in the thread?

It seems like a glob of blood is dropped in a tank full of sharks and it's a feeding frenzy. The sharks want to eat but there's nothing there except them, yet they don't stop.

 

[cajunator]

In what? God? Which one, exactly? Yours? Why yours over any other? If not yours, then why another over yours?

Believe in everything. Problem solved.

 

[Jackson]

Believe in everything. Problem solved.

But I don't believe you!

 

[Sonki.]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold? hmm? food for thought isn't it?

No.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why is it so unlikely and absurd to you that God exists? Is there factual evidence that proves the unlikelihood and absurdity of it?

The lack of evidence is what calls doubt onto the claim. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence required to support it. If I were to claim that Kim Jong Il was a god, I could look to that country's official documentation supporting the claim. But beyond claims and millions of believers, where is the direct evidence? Kim COULD have been a god as millions believe and what a country states is factual, but without empirical evidence, this can be dismissed.

God is a dismiss-able concept. There is no getting around it.

 

[Uchip]

Why do athiests feel so compelled to question and belittle people of different beliefs than what they hold? hmm? food for thought isn't it?

"Why can't you keep your atheism to yourself?"
"Because the religious wont allow me to. Because every time I open the paper there's another instance of theocratic encroachment on free society - which I won't put up with; up with which I will not put! I hope that's clear."

 

[Erigu]

The flying spaghetti monster is an absolutely awesome thing to believe in dont you think?

I didn't know about the Loose Canon... Sign me up! Why have no religion at all when you could have a funny religion instead?

 

[cajunator]

But I don't believe you!

Then believe in not believing me.
Believe in NeoGAF.
It implores you.
Personally i still recommend the spaghetti monster.
I mean, its a fucking SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
i bet it wakes up every day thinking " i am fucking awesome"

 

[Log4Girlz]

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiability of a teapot to God"

Man, he lived a LONG life.

 

[Uchip]

Then believe in not believing me.
Believe in NeoGAF.
It implores you.
Personally i still recommend the spaghetti monster.
I mean, its a fucking SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
i bet it wakes up every day thinking " i am fucking awesome"

Believe in the me that believes in you