Athiests - Who cares

Saipanne

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I think you have lost the argument Saipanne.

You can't win against blind faith.

Doctor Jimbob

Saipanne wrote: »

I will pray for your soul.

Can you pray for mine too? I'd like it to go to Valhalla. Those guys know how to party. Thanks in advance.

Saipanne

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you pray for mine too? I'd like it to go to Valhalla. Those guys know how to party. Thanks in advance.

I'll work on it. Any other celestial requests?

TheChizler

Saipanne wrote: »

No thanks.

Have I offered you something?

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Only if it refers to any type of god, but the poster has capitalised it as God, which is usually referring to the abrahamic gods, which most definitely don't exist. You can be gnostic towards obvious false claims and agnostic towards vague claims that have nothing to analyse the probabilities with. The god of the bible is simply a local tribal god blown out of all proportions by its followers, and if the bible is taken as read, looks like us, lives in the sky over a flat earth with a crystal dome with two conflicting origin stories that are flawed beyond belief (pun intended). The modernised version by 'enlightened' christians is so nebulous in its attributes that it is self refuting.

I'm talking a in a strictly logical sense, yes or no. You can never 100% disprove anything. However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea; a Russel's Teapot situation.

constance tench

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Theres lots to understand. Thats why we go to school, read books, watch documentarys, become scientists and such. Simply saying God Diddit is the antithesis of understanding and simply wishy washy mystical cobblers

OK, for you there are lots of discoveries to be made...I admire that.

Doctor Jimbob

Saipanne wrote: »

I'll work on it. Any other celestial requests?

Not right now, thanks :cool:

o1s1n

Saipanne wrote: »

I will pray for your soul.

I already have two grand mothers praying for my soul across two major world religions so am covered, thanks

Feel free to light a candle or hold a vigil for me though.

Roger Hassenforder

Saipanne wrote: »

I will pray for your soul.

Which god are you praying to?
I have a supplication you might include

Saipanne

o1s1n wrote: »

I already have two grand mothers praying for my soul across two major world religions so am covered, thanks

Feel free to light a candle or hold a vigil for me though.

Spread betting. Good work. I myself follow all religions. Including the religion of atheism.

Michael OBrien

keithclancy wrote: »

I'm talking purely about the definition of the word.

If you believe in one or many 'Gods' then you are not an Atheist
If you do not believe in a God then you are an Atheist

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

I say again "Not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god". There are thousands of variations of view on a god concept, that a dictionary cannot address. Deists for example believe a god may have started the universe, but either went away, stays objective and does not interfere, or died or ceased to be at the moment of creation (possibly more versions of course). A pantheist believes the universe is god, a panentheist believes we are all in the mind of god (like a dream). There are endless versions and of course there could be a god like being that is something we cannot even fathom.
People use a semantical shell game at times with what 'god' is when they state what atheists 'believe'. I am just wary of that when I post replies.

Michael OBrien

TheChizler wrote: »

Have I offered you something?



I'm talking a in a strictly logical sense, yes or no. You can never 100% disprove anything. However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea; a Russel's Teapot situation.

The gnostic view is not 100% yes or no certainty, but practical plausibilities.
I cannot say anything for 100%, even that I exist, so its a dangerous rabbit hole to go down and in my view a strawman on the topic that many people don't even realise.
The Russel Teapot is designed for showing where the burden of proof lies btw more than an actual claim of it possibly existing.
"However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea". That is all I am saying. In some cases the gods' claims result in zero probability of existing, but zero probabilities does not equal zero possibilities.

TheChizler

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The gnostic view is not 100% yes or no certainty, but practical plausibilities.
I cannot say anything for 100%, even that I exist, so its a dangerous rabbit hole to go down and in my view a strawman on the topic that many people don't even realise.
The Russel Teapot is designed for showing where the burden of proof lies btw more than an actual claim of it possibly existing.
"However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea". That is all I am saying. In some cases the gods' claims result in zero probability of existing, but zero probabilities does not equal zero possibilities.

I'm going to admit I'm lost here but I don't think we're disagreeing!

o1s1n

Saipanne wrote: »

Spread betting. Good work. I myself follow all religions. Including the religion of atheism.

So when you said 'god bless you' which god were you talking about if you believe in them all?

I hope not one of the crappier ones!

Sofiztikated

I'll have a good old argument with people IRL about Religion™, but in the end, it always ends up being an argument about the definition of atheism, rather than the topic at hand.

I'd call myself an agnostic atheist, christened and confirmed Presbyterian, and my partner is Catholic, christened and confirmed. I've tried, on a number of occasions, to point out to her that her belief structure does not fit with the term "Catholic" but it usually ends up in tears, and I'm not that much of a cúnt to keep pursuing it.

For the most part, a lot of people would be in the agnostic theist category. I've found that it's the Gnostic ones, both theist and atheist, that tend to be the arseholes.

Michael OBrien

Hermy wrote: »

Can you explain this?

A concept of something has different properties to the actual subject the concept is about. So an artist might envision a painting of a vase of flowers, but that concept is not the same as the vase of flowers, the same goes for concepts of imaginary subjects.
There are theological arguments that play a shell game between the two meanings and this can be a form of equivocation fallacy (changing between different meanings or definitions of the same word during a discussion without clarifying such actions leading to confusion on the part of the listener).

smash

constance tench wrote: »

Not 'a god'... god.

Scientific discovery may be the discovery of aspects of 'god'....and I'm not talking beardy man in the sky stuff here.

Then why did man get it so wrong in the great book of fairy tales? Surely if there was 'God' and his son was on earth then why did he not tell people about anything useful?

For theists to deny science under the basis that the bible says differently, then change their tune to be "It's not meant to be taken literally" and to now label scientific discovery as a discovery of aspects of god is absurd!

Sofiztikated

o1s1n wrote: »

So when you said 'god bless you' which god were you talking about if you believe in them all?

I hope not one of the crappier ones!

Please be Bilious

sh1tstirrer

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars. I know another Athiest who loves telling people that he is an athiest and going on about how he has been arguing about his wife about baptising the child and keeps bringing it up. I don't care if you are an athiest just please stay quiet about it! How are your athiest friends?

3rdDegree wrote: »

I'm an atheist, but try not to be a dick about it. I don't want religion shoved down my neck, so I expect others don't want my beliefs shoved down their necks either. No all atheists are dicks - just the dicks.

Interesting, seeing that you are an atheist what are your beliefs?

Saipanne

o1s1n wrote: »

So when you said 'god bless you' which god were you talking about if you believe in them all?

I hope not one of the crappier ones!

In that case it was Aten.

Ghost Buster

constance tench wrote: »

OK, for you there are lots of discoveries to be made...I admire that.

What about for you?

smash

There's nothing more annoying than going to a funeral when you're a non-believer...

"Are you not going for holy bread?"
"No"
"Why?"
"I don't believe in any of this stuff"
"Then why are you here?"
"For support for the family"
"It's a bit disrespectful to come into a church if you don't believe"
"It would be more disrespectful to not come to a funeral because I don't believe in the preachings of the church!"

Then there's always the afters where it's brought up over and over.

uck51js9zml2yt

Why is it that all they do in the atheist forum is take pot shots at those who believe in God, no matter how misguided they think they are.

Have they nothing else to talk about.

Legend_DIT

keithclancy wrote: »

We just did the Civil Marriage.

In Holland, many people get married on paper on the day its free in the City Hall and then have a ceremony the next day.

Our friends did it, went on the thursday to City Hall, got married on paper and then had a ceremony and a large bbq and outdoor disco at home.

My understanding of the Humanist thing is you can do pretty much whatever you want during the legal ceremony?

On reflection, I may have used the wrong term. We got married in the Unitarian Church by a Unitarian celebrant, as it was a venue that we liked. There are rituals that form part of the Unitarian wedding that are borrowed from other faiths for symbolic purposes - lighting candles, drinking of red and white wine to representing sweet and bitter times in the marriage but we chose all our readings and music and there was no mention of God or our personal faith whatsoever - it was purely focused on us as a couple and our love for one another.

endacl

Kalani Scrawny Aunt wrote: »

Why is it that all they do in the atheist forum is take pot shots at those who believe in God, no matter how misguided they think they are.

Have they nothing else to talk about.

Search the forum for 'biscuits'. There's plenty to talk about. Don't get dragged into the 'does pineapple belong on a pizza' debate though. Or anything to do with Jaffa cakes. Which are not biscuits. Obviously. They're cakes.

constance tench

smash wrote: »

Then why did man get it so wrong in the great book of fairy tales? Surely if there was 'God' and his son was on earth then why did he not tell people about anything useful?

For theists to deny science under the basis that the bible says differently, then change their tune to be "It's not meant to be taken literally" and to now label scientific discovery as a discovery of aspects of god is absurd!

Where did I present that progression?

smash

constance tench wrote: »

Where did I present that progression?

For the most part, the progression is blatantly clear when discussing aspects of the bible with theists. You took it to the level that scientific discovery as a discovery of aspects of god.

McG

Saipanne wrote: »

No. Stating that God doesn't exist is a faith position, because there is no way of knowing whether this is true. Have an old think about it before you or anyone replies.

In the same way you have a "faith position" about leprechauns or unicorns.

Atheism doesn't state that a god doesn't exist, simply there is no belief that a god exists.

RobertKK

Some believe in a God.
Others believe no God exists.
Believing in God is a definite position.
Believing in no existence of God is a definite position.
Neither side can be sure they are correct, they just presume they are correct, whether through faith or belief in their position.

I'm not agnostic but surely this is the most balanced approach if you don't believe in a God, given neither side can be 100% sure their position is correct.

constance tench

smash wrote: »

For the most part, the progression is blatantly clear when discussing aspects of the bible with theists. You took it to the level that scientific discovery as a discovery of aspects of god.

Well, you've made the mistake of pigeonholing me.

Ghost Buster

Kalani Scrawny Aunt wrote: »

Why is it that all they do in the atheist forum is take pot shots at those who believe in God, no matter how misguided they think they are.

Have they nothing else to talk about.

In the atheist forum? They could talk about football I suppose but would seem a little out of place.

keithclancy

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I say again "Not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god". There are thousands of variations of view on a god concept, that a dictionary cannot address. Deists for example believe a god may have started the universe, but either went away, stays objective and does not interfere, or died or ceased to be at the moment of creation (possibly more versions of course). A pantheist believes the universe is god, a panentheist believes we are all in the mind of god (like a dream). There are endless versions and of course there could be a god like being that is something we cannot even fathom.
People use a semantical shell game at times with what 'god' is when they state what atheists 'believe'. I am just wary of that when I post replies.

If you believe there is no God then you do not believe in a God.

Hence under the term in the dictionary, you are an Atheist.

nc19

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars. I know another Athiest who loves telling people that he is an athiest and going on about how he has been arguing about his wife about baptising the child and keeps bringing it up. I don't care if you are an athiest just please stay quiet about it! How are your athiest friends?

I could say the same thing about people who say 'god bless you' when I sneeze or 'please god' all the feckin time....... I dont care if you believe in fairy stories!!!

lazygal

endacl wrote: »

Search the forum for 'biscuits'. There's plenty to talk about. Don't get dragged into the 'does pineapple belong on a pizza' debate though. Or anything to do with Jaffa cakes. Which are not biscuits. Obviously. They're cakes.

That's your belief.
I say yes to Hawaiian pizzas festooned with pineapple. With biscuits, ie jaffa cakes, for pudding.

smash

constance tench wrote: »

Well, you've made the mistake of pigeonholing me.

Well it's very easy to do when someone doesn't fully explain themselves or their stance on an issue. Your replies are vague and short at best.

constance tench

smash wrote: »

Well it's very easy to do when someone doesn't fully explain themselves or their stance on an issue. Your replies are vague and short at best.

OK, I forgive you.

Sofiztikated

keithclancy wrote: »

If you believe there is no God then you do not believe in a God.

Hence under the term in the dictionary, you are an Atheist.

Stolen shamelessly from Reddit (highlighted text by me):

Athenagoras’ apology, addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, called the legatio pro Christianis “combats the three popular charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.” In this work, divided into 33 books, he devotes 28 books on refuting the charge of atheism, as to illustrate the gravity. To comprehend the allegation of atheism, it needs to be understood that the Romans had a pragmatic approach to religion. Ferguson remarks that so too “atheism in the ancient world was practical, not theoretical.” In order to remain favourable to the Gods, the Romans merely had to perform religious practice correctly, regardless of any personal conviction. The people were free to hold any belief, on one condition. Nothing was demanded of new faiths except an occasional gesture of adoration to the gods and the head of state. An atheist was “someone who did not observe the traditional practice.” Not to partake in public worship, is not so much obstinacy to the virtue of obedience, but it could endanger the whole state and was seen as the equivalent of treason. Thomas Robbins pointed out that “one was converted to the intolerant faiths of Judaism and Christianity while one merely adhered to the cults of Isis, Orpheus, or Mithra.” Paying tribute to another god was no impediment for pagans who could effortlessly exchange allegiance between diverse gods, for worship was a mere adherence without any further going convictions other than a commitment towards a patron. Conversely it was more problematic for faiths without such a flexible pantheon, especially monotheists who were seen as intolerant for their repudiation to adhere to the gods of the empire. As a result monotheists were rated as atheists: “one’s own god counted for nothing if one denied everybody else’s.

Peist2007

smash wrote: »

There's nothing to understand. Someone wrote in a book "God exists" and others blindly followed. It was words written in a book, by men who had extremely limited education, in order to control the population. Over the past few centuries, the stories written in the book have been proved to be false yet people still seem to believe. But not only do they believe, they've decided to pick and choose what they want to believe from the book. Hypocrisy in it's highest form.

This. God was devised by people no different to you or me people.

o1s1n

RobertKK wrote: »

Some believe in a God.
Others believe no God exists.
Believing in God is a definite position.
Believing in no existence of God is a definite position.
Neither side can be sure they are correct, they just presume they are correct, whether through faith or belief in their position.

I'm not agnostic but surely this is the most balanced approach if you don't believe in a God, given neither side can be 100% sure their position is correct.

It comes down to logic. You can believe there's no current logical evidence of a god to prove his existence to you. That does not equate 'there is no god and never possibly can be'

That would be agnostic atheism. Which is what most atheists are and what you probably are too

RobertKK

o1s1n wrote: »

It comes down to logic. You can believe there's no current logical evidence of a god to prove his existence to you. That does not equate 'there is no god and never possibly can be'

That would be agnostic atheism. Which is what most atheists are and what you probably are too

Well I believe in a God, so that excludes atheism!

Peist2007

constance tench wrote: »

Well, you've made the mistake of pigeonholing me.

I think you've made the mistake of tripping over yourself. Dont blame you though. All those knots you are tied in look sore

Akrasia

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I say again "Not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god".

Atheists don't believe in god. Nontheists believe there is no god.

All agnostics are atheists, no agnostics are nontheists, all nontheists are atheists

constance tench

Peist2007 wrote: »

I think you've made the mistake of tripping over yourself. Dont blame you though. All those knots you are tied in look sore

Quite...

vicwatson

Atheists have symbols of christianity shovelled down their throats everyday in this country - from bongs at 12.00 noon to bongs at 18.00 on our national tv and radio stations to joe Duffy thanking "God" every 2 minutes

BlaasForRafa

RobertKK wrote: »

Some believe in a God.
Others believe no God exists.
Believing in God is a definite position.
Believing in no existence of God is a definite position.
Neither side can be sure they are correct, they just presume they are correct, whether through faith or belief in their position.

I'm not agnostic but surely this is the most balanced approach if you don't believe in a God, given neither side can be 100% sure their position is correct.

The thing is that religious people do 100% believe that a god exists, to be unsure is to be somewhere on the spectrum of agnostic.

The atheist position would be something like, "I'm 99.9% sure that God doesn't exist but it's not possible to be 100% sure". As for proof, it's up to theists to prove that a god does exist and so far they haven't managed to do that.

PopePalpatine

vicwatson wrote: »

Atheists have symbols of christianity shovelled down their throats everyday in this country - from bongs at 12.00 noon to bongs at 18.00 on our national tv and radio stations to joe Duffy thanking "God" every 2 minutes

And it only gets worse once you have kids.

I'd say if that religious ethoses were dropped by publicly-funded schools, baptisms would drop too by at least 30%.

Philo Beddoe

lazygal wrote: »

That's your belief.
I say yes to Hawaiian pizzas festooned with pineapple. With biscuits, ie jaffa cakes, for pudding.

You sicken me, heathen.

keithclancy

Akrasia wrote: »

Atheists don't believe in god. Nontheists believe there is no god.

All agnostics are atheists, no agnostics are nontheists, all nontheists are atheists

Also you can have a Religion while being an Atheist

Like these crazy racists

http://creativitymovement.net/

Peist2007

constance tench wrote: »

Quite...

If i were you i'd keep my posts short too. Less is definitely more in the game you're playing

smash

Peist2007 wrote: »

If i were you i'd keep my posts short too. Less is definitely more in the game you're playing

If you play connect the dots with his/her posts you could almost make a sentence

constance tench

Peist2007 wrote: »

Give me a list of the most important ones, seeing as there are many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences