Athiest Evangelising?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Who made you the king of my religion? If indeed I have one?

I don't have to be the king of a religion to know what it teaches. At least the teachings I'm giving are accurate whereas you're insisting on keeping your mistaken view of atheism despite people trying to explain the difference between being unconvinced and being convinced of the opposite.

Glenster wrote: »

And if I wanted only to take little bits of christianity and little bits of judaism and little bits of islam and call it a religion? Who is going to stop me? the religion police?

You can take whatever you want from any religion, I do it myself but I don't then try to make out that what I'm following is the word of god. Who are you to decide which bits of god's word appeal to you and which don't?

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

But whats with the poster campaigns?

Are you talking about the UK buses? They were in direct response to a Christian bus campaign that referenced a website which stated what manner of people were going to burn in hell. It was more a social experiment (thought up by a comedian) than anything else. And it provoked much likely debate, which can only be a good thing, right?

The only Irish ads I've seen were from the Humanist Society, highlighting the constitutional requirement to be religious to stand for President and other public offices.

Glenster wrote: »

Why do people that i know who dont believe in god want me not to believe in god in the same way people who believe in god want me to believe in god (thats just from personal experience I have no evidence to back it up)

Most of us here would not go about in public trying to convert our friends and family - instead only discuss religion when brought up by someone else. This forum exists as much as a vent, as anything else.

But look at this way - if your friend became a scientologist - would you say nothing them? Or would you try to convince them their beliefs were nuts?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Lack of belief is different. I lack a belief in purple bananas, I've never really thought about it. I do not disbelieve in purple bananas. Disbelieving in purple bananas would be a waste of my time. They might exist.

Then you need to update your understanding of the word disbelief. As far as we're concerned you do disbelieve in purple bananas. I lack belief in a god even though one or more might exist. And I will continue to lack belief until someone shows me some evidence of its existence. Your position on purple bananas is the same as my position on god

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

That was a joke. I was saying that as soon as I say that someone will accuse me of being brainwashed.

Attacking what religion was in the past is as reductive as attacking what science was in the past.

Aristotle said that maggots are born without parents UHHHHHHH! science is sooo stupid!!!

It's not attacking religion as it was in the past, it's what the KJV is touting today!

liamw

Glenster wrote: »

Why do people that i know who dont believe in god want me not to believe in god in the same way people who believe in god want me to believe in god (thats just from personal experience I have no evidence to back it up)

Religion can promote irrational thinking and non-questioning and non-critical thought, particularly by teaching that faith is a virtue. Sure a lot of religious people tend to compartmentalize their brains, but I still think that unquestioning faith has potential to make good people do bad things.

I don't particularly care what you do in your own time, and you can have whatever personal beliefs you like, but religious beliefs clearly infringe on society. Some examples include the already mentioned school situation, action against scientific pursuits like stem cell research, flying planes into buildings, religious wars...

I see religion as a cult, so I guess I wouldn't want my child/friend to be religious the same way as you wouldn't want them to be part of anything you identify as a cult.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Lack of belief is different. I lack a belief in purple bananas, I've never really thought about it. I do not disbelieve in purple bananas. Disbelieving in purple bananas would be a waste of my time. They might exist.

If the big woman who works in your local chipper with mental health problems and a tendency to make stuff up came to you and said Tom Cruise got married last weekend but it is a secret and no one knows but me, would you believe her?

If you didn't believe her, if you thought she was making it up, can you then assert from that that Tom Cruise didn't actually get married last weekend in a secret marriage?

Of course you couldn't. Tom Cruise might or might not have gotten married. You have no clue and it has nothing to do with your rejection of what this woman told you.

Because you don't believe your crazy lady doesn't mean you are asserting that you know Tom Cruise didn't get married. You do not know, but you don't believe your friend when he says he did.

Atheists don't believe theists. They aren't saying any more than that

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

Who is going to stop me? the religion police?

If you were in one of several countries of the world, yes.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can take whatever you want from any religion, I do it myself but I don't then try to make out that what I'm following is the word of god. Who are you to decide which bits of god's word appeal to you and which don't?

I never said I was following the word of god, I make no claims to the knowledge of absolute truth. I never said that God existed. Or that I was in any way religious. All I want to know is what is the motivation for an atheist (or whatever anyone wants to call themselves) to argue and convince someone around to their point of view. Academic curiosity.

There's no need to make it personal.

Malari

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you need to update your understanding of the word disbelief. As far as we're concerned you do disbelieve in purple bananas. I lack belief in a god even though one or more might exist. And I will continue to lack belief until someone shows me some evidence of its existence. Your position on purple bananas is the same as my position on god

Exactly!

The only difference is that if most people in the world did think purple bananas existed, in some shape or form, despite no-one ever having seen one, then you might hear a lot more about those who do not believe and people who are completely indifferent.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheists don't believe theists. They aren't saying any more than that

???

If a theist said the sky was blue??

So evasive.........

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

Glenster wrote: »

Lack of belief is different.

I really think you need to read the dictionary definitions of the basic terminology you are using before coming onto an atheist forum and insisting your assumed definitions are correct.

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

I never said I was following the word of god, I make no claims to the knowledge of absolute truth. I never said that God existed. Or that I was in any way religious. All I want to know is what is the motivation for an atheist (or whatever anyone wants to call themselves) to argue and convince someone around to their point of view. Academic curiosity.

There's no need to make it personal.

I'm not making it personal, I'm pointing out the logical problems with ignoring parts of the bible while still believing in other parts. If you don't do that then good for you.


Have we explained well enough why an atheist would want to argue against religious belief?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

???

If a theist said the sky was blue??

So evasive.........

Oh dear. I think you know where you've gone wrong there

Malari

Glenster wrote: »

I never said I was following the word of god, I make no claims to the knowledge of absolute truth. I never said that God existed. Or that I was in any way religious. All I want to know is what is the motivation for an atheist (or whatever anyone wants to call themselves) to argue and convince someone around to their point of view. Academic curiosity.

There's no need to make it personal.

Because it seems ridiculous to me (can't speak for any other atheist) that people believe in something with absolutely no evidence and no-one has any way of knowing whether it is true or not. AND because there are so many people who believe in a god.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you need to update your understanding of the word disbelief.

Stop trying to make this black and white. There is belief, there is disbelief (not belief) and there is not knowing.

Believe is a verb not a noun.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

???

If a theist said the sky was blue??

So evasive.........

Now you are just being silly. Incidentally, the sky isn't blue so

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

Who made you the king of my religion? If indeed I have one? And if I wanted only to take little bits of christianity and little bits of judaism and little bits of islam and call it a religion? Who is going to stop me? the religion police?

Your own sensibilities should stop you, seeing as you will be picking the bits you think are valid/good/worthy and rejecting the bits you don't like/are outdated/promote inequality. Pretty soon, you will realise that you are imposing your own moral/logical rules of thumb. And you are doing so in order to set up a list of moral/logical behaviours? Which you don't need because you're already making those judgements etc etc etc etc

At which point, you will have thought religion out of existence, in a manner similar to Douglas Adams' god figure

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I really think you need to read the dictionary definitions of the basic terminology you are using before coming onto an atheist forum and insisting your assumed definitions are correct.

lack of belief (i.e. not believeing one way or the other) is not the same as actively disbelieveing.

one is activity the other is inactivity.

King Mob

Glenster wrote: »

lack of belief (i.e. not believeing one way or the other) is not the same as actively disbelieveing.

one is activity the other is inactivity.

Whoops, looks like someone has tripped over himself.

Glenster wrote: »

Semanticly those two statements are identical.

Turtwig

Glenster wrote: »

disbelief and not belief are the same thing, to reject something you must have an active opinion of it.

What a pile of utter crap.

If someone out there today has never heard nor thought of the the concept of a god. How can you possibly say they are actively believing that there is no God? Disbelief and non belief are NOT the same thing.

I'm sorry if the picture of atheists hasn't conformed to your impression but if your truly interested in understanding us you'd have at least have to decency to try and modify your picture of us not rigidly stick to it and say "perhaps your not the kind of atheists I was looking for?". Do I view all Christians as fundamentalists creationsists nutjobs? No! That would be taking the easy and ignorant way out now wouldn't it.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Your own sensibilities should stop you, seeing as you will be picking the bits you think are valid/good/worthy and rejecting the bits you don't like/are outdated/promote inequality. Pretty soon, you will realise that you are imposing your own moral/logical rules of thumb. And you are doing so in order to set up a list of moral/logical behaviours? Which you don't need because you're already making those judgements etc etc etc etc

At which point, you will have thought religion out of existence, in a manner similar to Douglas Adams' god figure

All modern religion is personal.

Are you not a Spurs fan if you think Defoe should be on his own up front?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

Stop trying to make this black and white. There is belief, there is disbelief (not belief) and there is not knowing.

1. There is belief in a proposition
2. There is disbelief/lack of belief in a proposition
3. There the belief that a proposition is false.

Your understanding of atheism seems to be number 3 but for the vast majority of atheists it's number 2.

Glenster wrote: »

Believe is a verb not a noun.

Believe is a verb but belief is not. You don't say "I belief in god".


edit: this might help:

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

???

If a theist said the sky was blue??

So evasive.........

*groan*

Atheists don't believe theists when they make claims about supernatural gods

I would have thought that was implied by the context, obviously not

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

Stop trying to make this black and white. There is belief, there is disbelief (not belief) and there is not knowing.

Believe is a verb not a noun.

Sam said "you need to update your understanding of belief" - belief is a noun. Btw, believe can be either a transitive or intransitive verb.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

lack of belief (i.e. not believeing one way or the other) is not the same as actively disbelieveing.

one is activity the other is inactivity.

I think of it as divided by evidence:
There is a god - no evidence for that statement
There is NO god - no evidence for that statement
There is no evidence for god so I will continue on my life's path with the premise that he doesn't exist until someone demonstrates otherwise.

Strictly speaking, most of us are in the final category. You cannot force us into the second category. It is as dogmatic as the first.

Dades

WeeBushy

Glenster wrote: »

Attacking what religion was in the past is as reductive as attacking what science was in the past.

Aristotle said that maggots are born without parents UHHHHHHH! science is sooo stupid!!!

No its not at all.

Science doesn't use Aristotle's proposition anymore because it was found to be wrong.

Christianity still uses the book that promotes slavery, genocite and infantacide as the foundation of its faith.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

All modern religion is personal.

Well then it ain't religion.

Sam Vimes

Basically Glenster, what you're saying here is: "No you can't hold this reasonable position that you're saying you hold, you actually hold this other irrational and illogical position that I think you hold because that allows me to label you as irrational and illogical".

Sorry mate but that's called a straw man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Glenster

King Mob wrote: »

Whoops, looks like someone has tripped over himself.

I'm merely pointing out that to form an opinion one way or the other is active (Disbelief/Belief are actions).

Not thinking about something a is passive rejection of the discourse

To say "I do not have belief" is to not think about it enough to have an opinion, or to accept that a personal opinion cannot be reached on the matter and to refuse to waste time and energy thinking about it.