Why are you an atheist?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

Of course you do, since you believe yours is true and the rest are false.

I, on the other hand, believe they're all false.

Nothing new here.

Even if I was to say they were all false. The claims are fundamentally different. There are clear differences in what they teach about reality.

Sarky

Religions are pretty famous for staying as far away from reality as possible. Again, nothing new.

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

Religions are pretty famous for staying as far away from reality as possible. Again, nothing new.

That's only if you presume atheism to be correct. I don't see any good reason to do that, particularly given that I've seen that there are a number of good reasons to trust in the Gospel.

As a result, repeating 'no evidence' ad-infinitum offers me no good reason to reject it.

That aside - When you say "religions". One has to ask what do you mean. Unless we tackle the specific claims of X or Y, you're essentially expecting any adherent of any faith to defend them all.

coffee_cake

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe we could persuade one of the buddhists to complain about how we always pick on them?

STOP OPPRESSING ME HALP HALP IM BEING REPRESSED

NOW WE SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM


i think wibbs mentioned us earlier but i cant summon up any moral righteous indignation outrage sry

coffee_cake

Jernal wrote: »

Well we did steal the cookies from the cookie jar. Only recently has that constant-in-your-face-grievance of a complaint finally been dropped.

i actually dont mind dropping it, i only dig it out again when someone uses argument from ignorance
the fact you've seen it so often, well... there's a lot of arguments from ignorance attempted
it's all a bit overwhelmingly common at this stage though

Sarky

Oh phil. phil, phil, phil. Atheism is not something one presumes to be true or false. It's what's left when you reject just one more religion than the hundreds you already reject. You've come tantalisingly close in the past, but you've always shied away at that last logical step.

But go on, try and muddy the waters again. Ignore things like moral relativism, conflicting bible passages, and all those Christians that are making up the numbers when you want them but are just True Scotsmen when it comes to what they get up to in the name of your god. Things you have never, ever addressed in any decisive fashion.

Perhaps you can say "It makes sense to me" without ever detailing why?

Or you could trot out the old "I'll respond when you're ready for a discussion" to everyone interested in a discussion but doesn't side with you.

Ooh, or you can use that classic "I'll have to read up on that" and then fail to read up on it because you're scared it'll challenge your views.

Oh, no, wait, tell us again how the bible is the greatest description of human nature ever! That one's a classic.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

My preexisting worldview was agnosticism.

Eh? No doubt it was.

philologos wrote: »

Bear in mind you're committing a genetic fallacy. A number of different reasons lead me to think that Christianity is true and I spent quite a bit of time mulling it over before I decided to follow Jesus over 5 years ago.

In referring to your "pre-existing worldview", I was suggesting that, before you acquired your current religious beliefs, you held a view of the world which predisposed you to finding fairly recently-evolved protestant religious belief convincing. In this case, any combination of the notions that (a) things happen for a "reason"; (b) order cannot arise from disorder; (c) there exists a "higher power"; (d) the universe did not create itself; (e) there must be a "purpose" to life; etc, etc.

ie, you started off with your conclusion and then fitted the evidence so that you could convince yourself.

It's a silly way to reach a conclusion, especially one in which you invest any time or other resources, though it is one which will allow you to conclude what you want to, and no doubt thereby providing yourself with much emotional comfort.

philologos wrote: »

Absurdity or what?

Quite

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

But there are people who have heard and tell these stories. So they must be as valid as the stories that you have heard and repeat, therefore big foot and ghost must exist right?


But what bad things? How do these bad things happen? Why do they happen?
How do you know that fairies cause any bad things ever? How do you know that fairy forts are actually connected in any way to fairies even if they do exist?

And what about the similarly "well documented" cases of alien abduction? Do you believe that these things prove that they happen?

No it's precisely on topic, because you already understand the reasons why most of us are atheist as they are the same reasons you don't believe in ghosts or bigfoot. My point now is that there are no differences between those things you don't believe and the supernatural things you do believe aside from the seemingly totally arbitrary distinction you've settled on that anything you are told is true.

Ok, loads of questions here and I'm not sure how to answer them! Do you want my stories that I've heard of fairies? Have you heard stories of fairies? Would you knowing destroy a fairy fort or fairy tree? Well I wouldn't and maybe thats being silly, maybe that's completely mad, but I wouldn't. Whether the stories are true or not, I'm not going to tempt faith by testing it. I get your analogy about comparing my non belief in the aforementioned things to your non belief in religion though!

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

bluewolf wrote: »

STOP OPPRESSING ME HALP HALP IM BEING REPRESSED

NOW WE SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM


i think wibbs mentioned us earlier but i cant summon up any moral righteous indignation outrage sry

i actually dont mind dropping it, i only dig it out again when someone uses argument from ignorance
the fact you've seen it so often, well... there's a lot of arguments from ignorance attempted
it's all a bit overwhelmingly common at this stage though

Overused your CAP quota again?

coffee_cake

my wha

Sarky

Hang on to the Willy Wonka quote. It's brilliant on many levels.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

That aside - When you say "religions". One has to ask what do you mean. Unless we tackle the specific claims of X or Y, you're essentially expecting any adherent of any faith to defend them all.

All religions make supernatural claims, most about a God and all about morals and the afterlife, all of them typically requiring you to ignore the complete lack of facts to support that claim (aka faith).

Once you see it in one religion (typically here catholism) you see it in all religions.
The specifics of those supernatural, unsupportable claims are irrelevant in the face of the fact they are indistinguishable from fiction.
The same goes for whatever other non-religious supernatural claims you personally don't buy into for the same reasons we don't buy yours, be they bigfoot or aliens or psychics or almighty teapots.

I can explain to you for hours why Marvel comics are better than DC, but that won't make Spider-man any more real.

Sarky

King Mob wrote: »

I can explain to you for hours why Marvel comics are better than DC, but that won't make Spider-man any more real.

I'm nicking that.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Eh? No doubt it was. In referring to your "pre-existing worldview", I was suggesting that, before you acquired your current religious beliefs, you held a view of the world which predisposed you to finding fairly recently-evolved protestant religious belief convincing. In this case, any combination of the notions that (a) things happen for a "reason"; (b) order cannot arise from disorder; (c) there exists a "higher power"; (d) the universe did not create itself; (e) there must be a "purpose" to life; etc, etc.

I'm intrigued by you saying a "recently-evolved protestant religious belief". I'd be interested to hear what you actually mean by that?

I think your suggestion is plain wrong. I didn't believe in the Gospel. I didn't even have much of an idea as to what it was, in fact I was surprised by what I read in the Bible. I also clearly lived my life in a way that would have never been compatible with Christian principles.

I had to commit myself to living as a Christian, rather than how I lived before as a result, which was not easy and is not easy by any means.

robindch wrote: »

ie, you started off with your conclusion and then fitted the evidence so that you could convince yourself.

I started off without a clue about the subject. I didn't know whether or not there was any form of God.

robindch wrote: »

It's a silly way to reach a conclusion, especially one in which you invest any time or other resources, though it is one which will allow you to conclude what you want to, and no doubt thereby providing yourself with much emotional comfort.Quite

It would be a silly way to reach a conclusion. Luckily it isn't how I reached mine.

As for comfort, I've said time and time again that comfort doesn't matter a damn. What matters is truth. It seems to be that you're the only one who suggests that I ever think this.

King Mob wrote: »

I can explain to you for hours why Marvel comics are better than DC, but that won't make Spider-man any more real.

Except the Bible isn't written as fiction. There is good reason to suggest that it was never written intentionally as fiction. There are two main possibilities: 1) Its writers believed it to be true but it is false, 2) Its writers believed it to be true and it is true.

Take a look at the link in my signature for more information.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

my wha

Your budget on caps usage.

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

Ok, loads of questions here and I'm not sure how to answer them!

Which is my point.
There is one solid, very reasonable answer that deals with all of them but you simply do not wish to come to that conclusion.

And because you are unwilling to do so you have to ignore the fact that you can't answer these questions

Rasheed wrote: »

Do you want my stories that I've heard of fairies? Have you heard stories of fairies?

Yes, and I have heard stories about bigfoot and aliens and lizard people who rule the planet.
But they never ever have anything to support the idea that they are true or exclude factors that would make them seem to be true when they actually aren't.

If you expect me to believe your stories, why then do you not believe the stories about bigfoot or aliens?

Rasheed wrote: »

Would you knowing destroy a fairy fort or fairy tree?

No, because I wouldn't destroy anything without reason, especially if it had archaeological significance since fairy forts are in actuality the remains of ring forts.

But an irrational unsupported superstition wouldn't be what stopped me, or would stop me from climbing on it etc.

Rasheed wrote: »

Well I wouldn't and maybe thats being silly, maybe that's completely mad, but I wouldn't. Whether the stories are true or not, I'm not going to tempt faith by testing it.

But you are now admitting that it's a totally irrational unsupported thing that you can't defend or even make a scrap of sense out of.
You don't know why it would be bad, or what would happen, or by what mechanism. You have just decided that it would be because you have accepted that uncritically. And on top of that, you think others buying similar beliefs for the exact same reason is silly.

Rasheed wrote: »

I get your analogy about comparing my non belief in the aforementioned things to your non belief in religion though!

You don't really as you seem to think there's something separating your beliefs from other similar beliefs that you don't accept.
It's not really an analogy. Me not believing your god is the exact same as both of us not believing in bigfoot.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Except the Bible isn't written as fiction. There is good reason to suggest that it was never written intentionally as fiction. There are two main possibilities: 1) Its writers believed it to be true but it is false, 2) Its writers believed it to be true and it is true.

Take a look at the link in my signature for more information.

I've read your list before non of it is convincing or well thought through.

To continue my comics analogy, we have Watchmen and the Punisher.
Watchmen was not "written as fiction" it was written as a collection of diaries, articles, tv shows, memoirs and even comics edited into a narrative.
The Punisher always takes it's narration from Frank Castle's War Journal, so is clearly not "written as fiction"
Another fictional example is the original book of The Prestige, which is not written as fiction but is written as the account of a journalist researching his ancestors and reprinting their diaries.

Or to use more relevant examples: neither L. Ron Hubbard's religious writings or Joseph Smith's writings are written as fiction.

But this aside, you have missed my point.
It doesn't matter what variety of supernatural claims they make or how them make them, the important part is that the claims are unsupported.
This is the common factor between all religions (and all supernatural beliefs) most atheists use to come to their position.

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

Which is my point.
There is one solid, very reasonable answer that deals with all of them but you simply do not wish to come to that conclusion.

And because you are unwilling to do so you have to ignore the fact that you can't answer these questions


Yes, and I have heard stories about bigfoot and aliens and lizard people who rule the planet.
But they never ever have anything to support the idea that they are true or exclude factors that would make them seem to be true when they actually aren't.

If you expect me to believe your stories, why then do you not believe the stories about bigfoot or aliens?

No, because I wouldn't destroy anything without reason, especially if it had archaeological significance since fairy forts are in actuality the remains of ring forts.

But an irrational unsupported superstition wouldn't be what stopped me, or would stop me from climbing on it etc.


But you are now admitting that it's a totally irrational unsupported thing that you can't defend or even make a scrap of sense out of.
You don't know why it would be bad, or what would happen, or by what mechanism. You have just decided that it would be because you have accepted that uncritically. And on top of that, you think others buying similar beliefs for the exact same reason is silly.

You don't really as you seem to think there's something separating your beliefs from other similar beliefs that you don't accept.
It's not really an analogy. Me not believing your god is the exact same as both of us not believing in bigfoot.

I don't think anyone's beliefs are silly, that's ignorant. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fairy subject.

Turtwig

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't think anyone's beliefs are silly, that's ignorant. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fairy subject.

So you don't think my belief that sky is actually a purple tart squished by a marshmallow is silly?

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't think anyone's beliefs are silly, that's ignorant. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fairy subject.

So then why do you think people believe in bigfoot and other things you don't believe in, when the stories they hear can't be convincing?

Why do they believe in something that you think clearly is not true?

Please don't just avoid the questions I'm asking you because the fact you might not be able to come up with an answer is probably the point I'm making.

PBroderick

What makes me laugh is that all these clever Atheists, basing their non-belief in any higher entity on factual science, is as old as the hills.

In fact, Jesus himself encountered such an Atheist who we all know as Doubting Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubting_Thomas).

Atheism is not new or clever, nor is it even interesting....it's a group of people who think that their existence; birth, life and death is completely meaningless and the result of nothing more than a happy accident.

You can follow that train of thought, or you can, as I have, attended a (free) lecture from the Dalai Lama in Manchester this week where you would have been truly enlightened.

Rasheed

Jernal wrote: »

So you don't think my belief that sky is actually a purple tart squished by a marshmallow is silly?

If that's your belief, best of luck to you. If I think it's silly I'll just keep my opinion to myself.

Turtwig

Rasheed wrote: »

If that's your belief, best of luck to you. If I think it's silly I'll just keep my opinion to myself.

But you do think it's silly?

Sarky

What makes me laugh is that all these clever religious people who think atheism is boring and uninteresting just can't keep away from the forum, despite several times swearing blind that they're not coming back. That and the lacklustre attempts at humour. But they're not "ha ha" funny.

Ickle Magoo

PBroderick wrote: »

Atheism is not new or clever, nor is it even interesting....

Ironically the sheer time and effort YOU spend reading and posting in this forum renders your own statement false...

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

So then why do you think people believe in bigfoot and other things you don't believe in, when the stories they hear can't be convincing?

Why do they believe in something that you think clearly is not true?

Please don't just avoid the questions I'm asking you because the fact you might not be able to come up with an answer is probably the point I'm making.

I don't really understand what you want me to say! Is this because I believe in fairies or because I believe in God?

Turtwig

PBroderick wrote: »

Atheism is not new or clever, nor is it even interesting....it's a group of people who think that their existence; birth, life and death is completely meaningless and the result of nothing more than a happy accident.

Oh the nerve of those arrogant atheists to even suggest! that we're not the centre of the universe and that the universe doesn't care about our lovely lives.
How dare they?

Rasheed

Jernal wrote: »

But you do think it's silly?

Never said that! Just meant I wouldn't like to insult anyone by downing a belief they have.

I wouldn't tell a jehovah witness that I think not allowing blood transfusions is silly. I don't think it's silly if is important to them. Not my cup of tea, that's all.

PBroderick

Jernal wrote: »

Oh the nerve of those arrogant atheists to even suggest! that we're not the centre of the universe and that the universe doesn't care about our lovely lives.
How dare they?

I looked into this thread to see for myself if Atheists had made any progress from poor old Doubting Thomas.

They haven't.

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't really understand what you want me to say! Is this because I believe in fairies or because I believe in God?

I don't want you to say anything, I would just like you to realise that there is no difference between your belief in God and fairies and beliefs you don't accept.

Every point you've said to support your beliefs can be used equally as well for those other beliefs.
And when I asked you to explain the difference you admitted you couldn't.

So again, why do people believe in bigfoot etc when it's so clear to you that it's not true?