Why are you an atheist?

PBroderick

Blowfish wrote: »

I genuinely think you should re-read the thread from the very start. There were a lot of well thought out answers given to Rasheed up to a certain point. It's well worth identifying that point and figuring out what exactly happened to turn people towards flippant responses.

Why the f*ck should I reason as to why they turned towards "flippant responses".

It is not on me to justify that, it is on them.

Ickle Magoo

shizz wrote: »

You realise the only difference is the amount of people who believe either claims right?

Exactly...

Blowfish

PBroderick wrote: »

Why the f*ck should I reason as to why they turned towards "flippant responses".

It is not on me to justify that, it is on them.

Are you sure about that?

PBroderick

Let's make one thing very clear, we are not dealing with Atheists here, we are dealing with Agnostics.

Atheists: Godless

Agnostic: Ignorant

The vast majority of posters here are agnostic, not atheist.

PBroderick

Blowfish wrote: »

Who knew about evolution and galaxies 2000 years ago?

Seriously?

Read a book.

Ickle Magoo

PBroderick wrote: »

Well they are such bores....this Atheism stuff is going on for the last 2,000 years (documented at least). It offers nothing new. It's the same old hackneyed views....evolution, more galaxies, blah blah blah...it doesn't offer anything new to the discussion.

Not one "Atheist" here has offered anything worthwhile. They are most certainly not Atheists, they are Agnostic.

And you do realise that nothing you say is offering anything new to the discussion or that hasn't been posted in this forum a bazillion times - making it pretty worthless, boring, tedious - not to mention petty and bitchy...which is hardly intelligent, rational or enlightening behaviour to start throwing rocks from, is it?

Bannasidhe

PBroderick wrote: »

Well they are such bores....this Atheism stuff is going on for the last 2,000 years (documented at least). It offers nothing new. It's the same old hackneyed views....evolution, more galaxies, blah blah blah...it doesn't offer anything new to the discussion.

Not one "Atheist" here has offered anything worthwhile. They are most certainly not Atheists, they are Agnostic.

You really are being stunningly rude. Why do you feel the need to do that? What happened to 'treat others as you would like to be treated' of post #121?

Sarky

Blowfish wrote: »

I genuinely think you should re-read the thread from the very start. There were a lot of well thought out answers given to Rasheed up to a certain point. It's well worth identifying that point and figuring out what exactly happened to turn people towards flippant responses.

I shall investimagate! Using SCIENCE!






.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Wait... No, that can't be right, let me double check...


.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Mother of god, it happened right about the time PBroderick got butthurt!



We must flee!!!!!!1!!!1!!1111!!!

Blowfish

PBroderick wrote: »

Seriously?

Read a book.

I've read plenty, thanks.

2000 years ago the concept of evolution didn't exist. In relation to Galaxies, naturally the band of stars had been spotted, but they didn't start working out what it was until about a thousand years later.

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

Again the point is to get you to understand that people can believe in things that are not true and that's why belief does not equate to reality.

And since this is the case, even though you don't want to admit that, how do you conclude what you believe is actually true? If you can't conclude that, why do you believe it in the first place?[/

Ok alright, I know I have no proof what I believe is actually true whet hers it's fairies are real, God is real os that Roscommon is a great county.

But I though that's why they are called beliefs and not knowledge. As in a don't know fairies are real, I don't know God is real and I don't that Roscommon is a great county but they are my beliefs! Now can please get back to the original question.

Sonics2k

PBroderick wrote: »

Seriously?

Read a book.

Please show us this wonderful book from 2000 years ago that taught humanity about the workings of evolution and the galaxy.

edit:
Damn you Sarky, that gif just made me laugh water onto my laptop

Turtwig

Rasheed wrote: »

I'm sorry now, maybe I'm a bit slow but I don't get this! 'Or if it's that you simply haven't heard any bigfoot stories, why then why do you not count the amount of people who do believe in bigfoot stories they have heard?'

Long story short is I don't know if big foot is alive, dead or a figment of people's imagination.I realise that belief does not equate to reality but how has this anything to with why you are an atheist?! You answered my question back a few pages so thanks for that, that's all I wanted to know!

It's a very subtle point but it's one that we're grateful you're being patient with and trying to understand.

Most, if not all, supernatural claims bear a reliance on personal testimonies made by witnesses and other believers. The same is true of claims like spotting bigfoot, Elvis being alive and UFO sightings. The difference is that you have chosen to disbelieve in some claims and believe others. I just choose to doubt the claims until reliable evidence to the positive is presented. Do I think a guy like Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think He walked on water and was the living reincarnation of the Creator of this Cosmos ? No. I respect others rights to believe that He was but I don't see how they can choose to reject other's beliefs and then believe their own bizarre miracle stories. Bear in mind that UFOs have photographic proof. Vague maybe, but it's still more than we have of anything that suggested Jesus actually did walk on water.

Blowfish

Rasheed wrote: »

But I though that's why they are called beliefs and not knowledge. As in a don't know fairies are real, I don't know God is real and I don't that Roscommon is a great county but they are my beliefs! Now can please get back to the original question.

In essence it's tied in with the original question as the above is the first step that a lot of people begin with. In other words, they ask themselves 'if I don't believe in bigfoot, then why should I believe in fairies?'. Continuing down that rabbit hole and questioning exactly what you do believe and why is a common path trodden by Atheists.

Corkfeen

PBroderick wrote: »

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.

You do realise that Buddhism is a religion that is lacking a god of any variety? :pac:

In regards to your other ramblings, I suspect that the majority of people know that atheism is not new. However it is now far more socially acceptable than it would have been for previous generations, Doubting Thomas is indeed a fantastic example of how many religions preferred to condemn those who choose to question the dogmas of the faith and even the existence of god, just because it happened in the bible doesn't make it a factual event.

But I assume that you'd simply prefer to be condescending to posters and make assessments of them, based solely on the fact that they don't believe in a god. And you think there is reason to your argument that '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.'..... It's a sweeping statement that makes many assumptions with no real grounds for them.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

You do realise that Buddhism is a religion that is atheistic? :pac:

In regards to your other ramblings, I suspect that the majority of people know that atheism is not new. However it is now far more socially acceptable than it would have been for previous generations, Doubting Thomas is indeed a fantastic example of how many religions preferred to condemn those who choose to question the dogmas of the faith and even the existence of god, just because it happened in the bible doesn't make it a factual event.

But I assume that you'd simply prefer to be condescending to posters and make assessments of them, based solely on the fact that they don't believe in a god. And you think there is reason to your argument that '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.'..... It's a sweeping statement that makes many assumptions with no real grounds for them.

' a group of people who think that their birth is completely the result of nothing more than a happy accident.'

I was a happy accident .

Rasheed

Jernal wrote: »

It's a very subtle point but it's one that we're grateful you're being patient with and trying to understand.

Most, if not all, supernatural claims bear a reliance on personal testimonies made by witnesses and other believers. The same is true of claims like spotting bigfoot, Elvis being alive and UFO sightings. The difference is that you have chosen to disbelieve in some claims and believe others. I just choose to doubt the claims until reliable evidence to the positive is presented. Do I think a guy like Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think He walked on water and was the living reincarnation of the Creator of this Cosmos ? No. I respect others rights to believe that He was but I don't see how they can choose to reject other's beliefs and then believe their own bizarre miracle stories. Bear in mind that UFOs have photographic proof. Vague maybe, but it's still more than we have of anything that suggested Jesus actually did walk on water.

Ya ok, fair enough. That makes sense now. I haven't really chosen to disbelieve, I like to think I'm open minded about most things, I just said that I haven't really seen or heard something on certain subjects that has made me change my belief in that subject, eg Bigfoot. And I don't mean to keep picking on big foot! Am I getting any closer to getting yer point? I apologise again, it's been a long day!

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

Ok alright, I know I have no proof what I believe is actually true whet hers it's fairies are real, God is real os that Roscommon is a great county.

But I though that's why they are called beliefs and not knowledge. As in a don't know fairies are real, I don't know God is real and I don't that Roscommon is a great county but they are my beliefs! Now can please get back to the original question.

Again, unfortunately this is still part of the topic.

You are confusing statements of facts and statements of opinion.
Stating that a picture looks nice is a subjective opinion, it cannot be proved. But stating that the picture exists is a different matter, it can be shown to be true.

Stating God is real is not the same as holding an opinion that Roscommon is great.
It is a a statement of fact like the belief that Roscommon exists.

Yet you can't show that God is real, despite your belief. Similarly there are people who claim similar things that aren't true.

So either all of those other people's beliefs are valid, hence bigfoot and aliens and another other nonsense people can dream up all exist in the same way your god and fairies do.
Or that your belief in god and fairies are indistinguishable for made up claims and claims that aren't true.

So which is it?

Knasher

Rasheed wrote: »

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.

What about christian scientists (the sect of christainity, not scientists who happen to be christian), they believe that illness is caused by sin, fear or doubt and that only prayer can heal them, that using actual medicine is a sign of doubt and would therefore make you sicker. The result of this belief is that they die, at a higher rate than the members of any other comparable religious belief, and to illness that could easily be healed by modern medicine. They die and they let their kids die, because in 44 states in America receiving treatment by spiritual means according to the tenets of a recognized religion is not deemed to be neglect (so if a kid is dying of an easily curable disease, child protective services can't legally get involved so long as a minster is praying over them).

Can you really not put down a belief that directly results in child neglect and death for fear of insulting someone?

Rasheed

Blowfish wrote: »

In essence it's tied in with the original question as the above is the first step that a lot of people begin with. In other words, they ask themselves 'if I don't believe in bigfoot, then why should I believe in fairies?'. Continuing down that rabbit hole and questioning exactly what you do believe and why is a common path trodden by Atheists.

Oh right, I think I'm getting ye now. As in one question led onto another? Then I'd like to apologise to King Mobbs for me being a bit slow on the uptake if this was the point you were making!

Sonics2k

I'll attempt an on-topic post for the OP, as he seems like a reasonable person and is here for a good chat and debate. Though I admit to being more Agnostic than Atheist.

I was raised in England, with many friends of varying religions; Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian and so on, and was always quite interested in the various beliefs behind them all, the good and the bad. I've always had a questioning nature, I like things to be logical and make sense.
For the record I was raised by an Atheist, but from the very start of my questions about Religion she openly said I should follow the path that suits me.

Fast forward a few years to when I move to Ireland, and start primary school and get introduced to Catholicism. I liked to ask the teacher and priest lots of questions, and often got in trouble for questioning the various teachings, Noah and the Flood, God killing the first born child of the Egyptians and the whole Resurrection thing.

When they were -always- completely and utterly unable to provide any evidence outside of the Bible, I got increasingly skeptical of the whole thing. Throughout Secondary school it was the same thing over and over again, all of the stuff they taught from the Bible just made no sense.
It bothered me that some of it is literal, but other parts aren't.

They used Leviticus as a reason to call Homosexuality evil, but then completely ignored the parts about having beards, mould and what animals you cannot eat.

I was (and still am) completely baffled that people can truly believe anything in this (or any other Holy) book is entirely true, but can claim that Hinduism or even the Norse Gods as nonsensical.

We know, for a complete and utter fact, that Christianity is an amalgamation of various beliefs thrown into one. This is a historical fact.
It's a religion that was adapted to suit the lands it was coming into, to help convert the native people.

I'm baffled that Christians can read Revelations, and not realise that the Christian God is actually a complete asshole. In fact I truly believe everyone who claims to be a Christian should actually read the damn thing. It's -insane-.

I believe in evidence, not fantasy. Not a single "miracle" in the bible can be backed up with any form of real evidence. In fact, the only source of any of these things come from the Bible.

I do, admittedly, accept the possibility of a 'higher' form of life, but I do not accept it's an all-powerful God(s) that watch and judge my every action. Not until I see some full on proof.

Rasheed

Knasher wrote: »

What about christian scientists (the sect of christainity, not scientists who happen to be christian), they believe that illness is caused by sin, fear or doubt and that only prayer can heal them, that using actual medicine is a sign of doubt and would therefore make you sicker. The result of this belief is that they die, at a higher rate than the members of any other comparable religious belief, and to illness that could easily be healed by modern medicine. They die and they let their kids die, because in 44 states in America receiving treatment by spiritual means according to the tenets of a recognized religion is not deemed to be neglect (so if a kid is dying of an easily curable disease, child protective services can't legally get involved so long as a minster is praying over them).

Can you really not put down that a belief that results in child neglect and death for fear of insulting someone?

Well no, you're right, that just cruel in fairness. And that goes beyond my good manners but do you get what I'm saying about not putting down say Protestants or Baptists? They might not believe what I believe but that's their right and best of luck to them. I'm not going to preach to anyone.

Blowfish

Rasheed wrote: »

Oh right, I think I'm getting ye now. As in one question led onto another?

Precisely. Being honest with yourself and asking 'why fairies and not bigfoot' tends to lead to the realisation that if you can't prove a belief through knowledge or experimentation, then that belief is in essence indistinguishable from any of the completely fantastical things that you don't actually believe.

robindch

PBroderick wrote: »

do you think this is a place where an intelligent discussion can be held?

Yes -- feel free to take part in it if you're able to!

PBroderick wrote: »

[...] Boards' Atheists are boring and uninteresting. They spout clichés galore, their understanding of global religions is laughable [...]

PBroderick wrote: »

[...] dim-witted clichéd crap [...] Answer me this....who's the f*cking clown here?

PBroderick wrote: »

You need to read some books, get yourself a proper education. You're embarrassing yourself with posts like this, you really are.

Was tempted to produce a card, but naah. Instead, let me award you A+A's first-ever Bladder-Onna-Stick -- congratulations!

Barr125

PBroderick wrote: »

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

They haven't.

Well, then you won't mind ringing Jesus up and telling him to come down so we can poke our fingers in his holes too.......

:pac:

As for my Atheism, going to college really helped me along, I had started doubting more and more as I got older and studying the Biology, Chemistry etc. (the scientific method) aided me.

Just as an off-topic aside, do you other guys consider yourself's Skeptics overall or are there certain things you still hold onto?

Dades

PBroderick wrote: »

Blowfish wrote: »

Who knew about evolution and galaxies 2000 years ago?

Seriously?

Read a book.

Oh dear.

Seriously, fun's over.

It's clear you've nothing to offer except rudeness and horrible factual inaccuracies. Post something useful - or at least civil - or I'm chucking you out.

coffee_cake

i wouldve thought atheism being not new was a compliment given some people's reasoning for christianity is "omg it's old"

same for "clever" with "i dont need intelligence i have faith"

Malari

I don't understand what the problem is with Doubting Thomas? Only admirable character in the bible I would think. He was presented with a unbelievable claim and he said 'oh yeah? Prove it!' that's all atheists do. But most of the time they just quietly get on with things without assuming a supernatural god exists.

connewitz

Growing up in the former GDR let no room for religion.
But I do think, that I would have lost my faith in God a long, long time ago (if I would have ever believed in him).
It is just too much to believe, that a human being was made from a rib or a whole Universe created by one super being, which is all too happy to look on at all the misery and suffering of his own creation !
Watch your Discovery Channel and it will take away all illusions!
BTW my partner (Irish) was raised in a very religious family and went to a Catholic school run by nuns. He is still haunted by the whole experience. With nearly 50 years of age, it still makes him feel uncomfortable to go into his old school (unfortunately every Election or Vote for a new treaty is in this school). To see him like this makes me very angry!!! What has the Church done to him and to millions of other people. And all in the name of God???? In my own experience, the most religious people are the biggest hypocrites!

swampgas

Malari wrote: »

I don't understand what the problem is with Doubting Thomas? Only admirable character in the bible I would think. He was presented with a unbelievable claim and he said 'oh yeah? Prove it!' that's all atheists do. But most of the time they just quietly get on with things without assuming a supernatural god exists.

Doubting Thomas was trotted out all the time when I was a child, generally as a story to indicate that "faith" was a virtue.

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

The emphasis was always on the last bit - that to believe without evidence was somehow virtuous. It's quite clever in that it implies that there was no reason to doubt in the first place, and that Thomas doubting Jesus was an act of disloyalty.

It really is an effective bit of anti-rational propaganda.

Malari

Yeah, I know the moral of the story was meant to be don't question authority but the message I took was be skeptical until you have evidence.