"no, I'm actually an athiest"

JohnathanM

krudler wrote: »

Honestly though, how in the name of Odin can someone not believe in dinosaurs?

I know. Even Chuck Norris and Sarah Palin believe in dinosaurs.

Mr. Loverman

Jakkass wrote: »

Mr. Loverman: One could equally claim that people are deluded for not believing. It's a woeful argument really.

I disagree. There is no evidence god exists.

OctavarIan

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How come atheists are so often on the offence and rarely on the defence then?

Maybe because spiritual people are more respectful of other's beliefs?

I could think of a load of things I could question you about the intricacies of atheism, but I choose not to as I think 'live and let live'., and I think everyone is on their own learning path and I respect that.

Who are you to tell some-one else they are misguided?

Have a gander back through history there and say 'spiritual people' are more respectful of others' beliefs.

At least atheists tend to keep their aggressiveness to verbal usage only.

MrStuffins

krudler wrote: »

Honestly though, how in the name of Odin can someone not believe in dinosaurs?..........

The same way a couple of people in this thread last night were actually questioning the existance of evidence of Evolution.

MADNESS I TELLS YA!

krudler

Ridley wrote: »

Only Zuuuuuul!

pffft, everyone knows Gozer is the real God, Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

AudreyHepburn

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I disagree. There is no evidence god exists.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The truth is none of us really truely know for sure either way.

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time a child says "I don't believe in dinosaurs, one drops dead."



Seriously, WTF do you be talking about sometimes?

Thanks for putting that so eloquently Galvasean :rolleyes:

What I am on about, and look back through this thread alone,is that the majority of the atheist arguments are focusing on how stupid the Catholic church is.
FFS it's not the only religion in the world, this argument doesn't make any sense in YOUR ideals of athiesm, so atheists obviously don't understand what atheism is, and therefore, I am sick to death of hearing atheists go on about the Catholic Church when it has nothing to do with atheism!

It's like to some atheists on here, the trendy atheist argument is:

Catholic Church is stupid = I am an atheist.

This makes no sense in atheism?

philologos

Do we want to just go "I disagree" repeatedly?

Or do we want to discuss. Personally, I believe there is evidence that God exists both from daily experience and in observing the world. I suspect it would require another thread to go into in any depth though.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

MrMojoRisin: I don't know how believing that one needs to believe in Christ to be saved is judgemental. Rather it seems to be just believing it to be the case. Could you elaborate on your reasoning please?

Mr. Loverman: One could equally claim that people are deluded for not believing. It's a woeful argument really to throw around 'deluded' as a hot potato.

god exists? prove it.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The truth is none of us really truely know for sure either way.

But which of us are the ones claiming to know for sure?

midlandsmissus

OctavarIan wrote: »

Have a gander back through history there and say 'spiritual people' are more respectful of others' beliefs.

At least atheists tend to keep their aggressiveness to verbal usage only.

i would differentiate them as 'religious' people not 'spiritual', and I don't agree with religion.

Mr. Loverman

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The truth is none of us really truely know for sure either way.

No but it is common sense to pick the "no evidence" option.

For example, maybe Santa Claus really does exist? I know there is no evidence for it but should I as an adult start believing he exists?

At some point you have to accept no evidence means it doesn't exist.

MrStuffins

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thanks for putting that so eloquently Galvasean :rolleyes:

What I am on about, and look back through this thread alone,is that the majority of the atheist arguments are focusing on how stupid the Catholic church is.
FFS it's not the only religion in the world, this argument doesn't make any sense in YOUR ideals of athiesm, so atheists obviously don't understand what atheism is, and therefore, I am sick to death of hearing atheists go on about the Catholic Church when it has nothing to do with atheism!

It's like to some atheists on here, the trendy atheist argument is:

Catholic Church is stupid = I am an atheist.

This makes no sense in atheism?

What?

What are you on about lad?

JohnathanM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The truth is none of us really truely know for sure either way.

So, we're back to the universe was created by fluffy pink unicorns from the planet Norris type argument. The only sound decision to make is that based on knowledge and understanding. Just because something might exist does not mean it does, and in the absence of any evidence it may as well not.

Ahhhhh my head hurts

I thought this was AH.

Religion- Every person has a right to beleive what he/she wants without interference.

That means if someone believes something (that includes believing that religion is bullcr*p) and doesn't want to debate it, don't force him/her.

Eg:

"God be with ye"

the correct response is

"actually I don't believe in a god, but thanks anyways"

not

"pfft! ridiculous pile of crap that god nonsense! Don't insult me you peado-supporter! why not go looking for Santa's help too? And why do you believe when....*insert questioning of first person's faith*"

Turtwig

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The truth is none of us really truely know for sure either way.

True.
So you are an agnostic theist?

MrMojoRisin

Jakkass wrote: »

MrMojoRisin: I don't know how believing that one needs to believe in Christ to be saved is judgemental. Rather it seems to be just believing it to be the case. Could you elaborate on your reasoning please?

I was referring to liah's point, where liah said that it is the vocalisation on the part of believers in God that's irksome, e.g. telling someone who isn't a believer that they'll pray for them to get into heaven. Why tell that person that? Why not go and do your praying for them and say nothing about it to them? Why the need to talk about it?

I never said that believing in Christ in order to be 'saved' is judgemental - I suggested that those Christ-believing people openly and vocally disparaging others' choices to not believe in Christ is judgemental and a pain in the hole. Again, can't they judge them in silence?

Just because you think something doesn't mean you have to tell others about it.

liah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How come atheists are so often on the offence and rarely on the defence then?

Maybe because spiritual people are more respectful of other's beliefs?

I could think of a load of things I could question you about the intricacies of atheism, but I choose not to as I think 'live and let live'., and I think everyone is on their own learning path and I respect that.

Who are you to tell some-one else they are misguided?

If spiritual people are more respectful of other's beliefs, why do so many focus on converting others, and why is Ireland a Catholic country, and why is the middle east in religious shambles, and why does the Phelps family exist, why have religions warred with each other for centuries to convert one another, why are there so many Christians posting in the A&A forum, etc.

It's not down to "spiritual people are more respectful" or "atheists are more respectful." It's down to "some people are more respectful of others regardless of their religion or lack thereof."

Turning it into some anti-atheistic statement is only going to raise hackles. We all know it's true for all religions, nationalities, races, whatever else. Condescension is a human trait, not a religious one.

I'm not saying some atheists aren't condescending, but honestly I'd put that up to the fact that atheists have been seen in an unfavourable light for centuries and it's only in the last few decades, even, that it's really starting to become universally accepted as a legitimate viewpoint on a large scale.

More and more atheists finally find it okay to speak about it and the religious are taking offense because, quite simply, they haven't had to deal with it before. There hasn't been a threat to religion for so long, they haven't a clue what to think of it.

So here we are, a bunch of bitter, repressed atheists who are just now allowed to express their lack of belief and be taken seriously, and there you are, the spiritual ones shocked at the venom displayed and saying it's uncalled for. Well, yeah. It is condescending, a lot of the time, but I hate to be the one to say this-- payback is a bitch. We have to deal with religious stuff on a regular basis, most of which the religious don't notice because it's supposed to be there and they take it for granted and don't bother to think that others may view it differently to they do. And that's where this crap comes up.

The reason you see so much hate against the RCC in particular is because it's the most influential. Not that atheists don't know anything about other religions. The RCC is just the biggest, most loud-mouthed, most negatively influential one from an atheists' viewpoint.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Do we want to just go "I disagree" repeatedly?

Or do we want to discuss. Personally, I believe there is evidence that God exists both from daily experience and in observing the world. I suspect it would require another thread to go into in any depth though.

If you can show me god, then I'll believe you - I'd be delighted to be shown god and have the question answered once and for all. Until then, however, I just can't justify going around believing in everything that people have claimed exists and we have no evidence for ie loch ness monster, little green men, mermaids, etc, etc.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not the states role and yet the state does nanny discourse, in this country about 50 years behind the rest of the west with the church very much in its pocket - or perhaps that's visa versa.

As someone who would believe that Western Europe has gone very much in the wrong direction, I can't see a leaning towards not believing as being progressive. Actually, I would probably go as far as saying that it is regressive.

Nannying discourse, or not nannying discourse has nothing to do with religiosity.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I do call out people when I disagree with their views - people calling other out on views is what this thread is all about and you'll notice the volume of theists who think atheists should not dare challenge views or opinions - now that would be a scary world - welcome back to the dark ages.

Gah. I hate the term dark ages, as it results from an ignorance of the Middle Ages (after studying Renaissance philosophy it makes a lot more sense). That aside, I get your point!

krudler

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Thanks for putting that so eloquently Galvasean :rolleyes:

What I am on about, and look back through this thread alone,is that the majority of the atheist arguments are focusing on how stupid the Catholic church is.
FFS it's not the only religion in the world, this argument doesn't make any sense in YOUR ideals of athiesm, so atheists obviously don't understand what atheism is, and therefore, I am sick to death of hearing atheists go on about the Catholic Church when it has nothing to do with atheism!

It's like to some atheists on here, the trendy atheist argument is:

Catholic Church is stupid = I am an atheist.

This makes no sense in atheism?

Not just catholics, you can lump Muslims, orthodox Jews, Presbo-Lutheran branches of Mormo-Christanity and Scientologists all in there as well, dont equate athiesm with just being ridiculing catholics, we do it to all religions equally

It just happens that the Catholic church is one of the most abhorrent group of pedo protecting, corrupt, fearmongering bunch of scumbags on earth. so they're an easy target.

Micky Dolenz

I believe in God, does that make me a bad person?

I do not practise any religion but I do say God bless a lot, and I think I mean it.

ragg

What i found funny is how aggressive athiesm has become. Most athiests these days try and force their beliefs more than any religious person does.

I find it peculiar that they feel the need to do this, I think it is probably a deep rooted fear of being wrong and going to hell

krudler

Malty_T wrote: »

True.
So you are an agnostic theist?

no shes a protestant catholic, there was a whole thread on it a while back :pac:

midlandsmissus

MrStuffins wrote: »

What a ridiculous thing to say? What ever gave you that idea?

You quoted me, so i presume you were talking to me.

If you go back and read the thread, you will see why i am using the RCC as an example.

To say that all Athiests cant differentiate between the RCC and other religions is a silly thing to say TBH!

At this point, the fact that people are wading in head first without actually reading the thread is becoming tiresome!

I'm not specifically talking to you.

I debate alot in the A&A forum on here and any debate I EVER have, I am assumed to be Catholic.

If you look at the majority or the arguments in the A&A forum, it's about how stupid the Catholic Church is.

If you have a conversation with one of the trendy atheists in real life, their argument will focus on how stupid the Catholic Church is.

What I am trying to say is,is that this makes no sense at all in the idea of atheism. Drives me mad!

Mr. Loverman

ragg wrote: »

What i found funny is how aggressive athiesm has become. Most athiests these days try and force their beliefs more than any religious person does.

If someone told you they believe in unicorns and talk to invisible ones every day, you'd probably also become very puzzled and find it hard to talk to them about it in a respectful, understanding manner.

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

True.
So you are an agnostic theist?

*puts hand up*

Meh, better to believe in something than nothing. Live a life of creation and not destruction, and God/The Universe/Bob will take care of you at the other end. I don' think He/She/It/They care about the details.

I reckon organised religion, to God/The Universe/Bob, is like getting flowers that you didn't ask for. They mightn't be the right ones, you might not have even asked for flowers at all, but you appreciate the gesture.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

As someone who would believe that Western Europe has gone very much in the wrong direction, I can't see a leaning towards not believing as being progressive. Actually, I would probably go as far as saying that it is regressive.

Hmm let's see.

Peace in the continent and those that were once enemies are now allies.
Equality status for women.
Almost equality status for gays.
More transparency between authority figures and the public. (If the fook up, we'll know about it a lot quicker.)
Average life expectancy 100 plus


Oh yeah, definitely regressive.

MrStuffins

ragg wrote: »

What i found funny is how aggressive athiesm has become. Most athiests these days try and force their beliefs more than any religious person does.

I find it peculiar that they feel the need to do this, I think it is probably a deep rooted fear of being wrong and going to hell

Oh Zeuz please, please please plkease stop saying "most Athiests". it's simply not true!

philologos

Ickle Magoo: It's up to you to seek God for yourself. Then yes, you will no doubt encounter Him. When I tried to a good three years ago, admittedly I was astonished at the results. I never actually thought it would be fruitful in any meaningful way, yet it was so much so that I am where I am now. Funny world!

As I said already, I can't share your view that there is no evidence for God's existence, because I would hold that there is in many respects.

Malty T: None of those things are attributable to atheism. Not one.