Another Fucking Religion Thread

[NinjaGeek]

If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. You are failing at logic if you think something being unprovable makes it reasonable. There could be a god, but there is no evidence, so that means there isn't. If evidence comes in that just means we were wrong, but I highly doubt that will happen. If you are agnostic regarding god, why are you not agnostic regarding every imaginary thing, because those are all equally (un)likely to exist.

I am agnostic regarding all things, as I have no idea how the universe was created. It's just that one could potentially come up with an infinite explanation of things that could've created the universe. To point at one of them (god) and say this one is not true, simply because many people think it is true, seems just as silly to me as pointing at one and saying it is true. It could be any of them and really we have no way of knowing which it is.

Argument From Ignorance broheme.

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false"

This would apply if I said "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he exists".

 

[Matt]

Atheists do seem to attack religion though. We Christians on here just live and let die, so on and so forth.

Just remember - don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc.

 

[cookiecutter]

"There's no proof that there is a god, there's no proof that there isn't a god" is NOT agnosticism. Faith does not equal proof. Agnosticism is the view that no one can know if there is a god or not because the experience of a god is subjective or that the truth about higher presences existing is unknown. Proof doesn't come into it at all.

As such, atheism is not "knowing" there isn't a god, it's having faith in you knowing there is not a god. In other words, nothing can be inherently "known" in terms of religious views and higher beings; you either have faith in your belief that something exists/doesn't exist, or you have no faith at all. Atheism literally has faith in the lack of a god.

For future reference, please do not confuse faith for proof of existence/non-existence. It's all too easy to do so, and I understand that, but it can be misconstrued as a destructive fallacy which aims to convince people who disagree with you (who may or many not have formulated their own thoughts on this subject) that your belief is proof.

I know what you are saying, but I don't think faith is the right word to use. Faith means something very different to religious believers than it does in the way you are using it. Atheists base their beliefs in rationality, reason and logic. They investigate their beliefs to make sure they are true. This is the opposite of "faith" as commonly used.

You are right that nothing can be "known" as in known to be the absolute truth, which I think is what you were aiming at. We could be missing something or God could come down from heaven tomorrow. However, it is not faiththat allows me to believe in the lack of god, but rather critical investigation of the evidence.

Different wording but my logic still applies. Of all the random ways the universe could have been created why do atheists form their belief set around the idea that there probably isn't a god, when there are so many other things you could have faith in not being the cause of the universe's creation.

Atheist belief sets are not random or faith based as mentioned above. I'm sure most atheists will tell you that they don't know how the universe came into being, but that is the reasonable view pending evidence.

It just seems like a belief set centered around attacking religion. The idea that a god created the universe does have to agree with one of the many religions on earth, and one could certainly start a religion that believes in god and is a lot less absurd than some of the current religions we have.

Atheism by itself has nothing to do with being anti-religion. However, when looking at it objectively, one usually becomes anti-religion.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Atheists do seem to attack religion though.

Alot of us have had bad experiences with religion and it tends to sharpen the metaphorical spears of our arguments.

 

[Valerie]

Let me guess, you took my utilization of the word "faith" in the typical Christian/non-secular context. Faith = fides (Latin root) = trust. There is no semantic difference, not even in religion, though it is a trait of Christians to willfully misinterpret this idea.

I trust my view that there is no god. Nothing will break this trust.

I'm with cookie.

 

[cookiecutter]

I am agnostic regarding all things, as I have no idea how the universe was created. It's just that one could potentially come up with an infinite explanation of things that could've created the universe. To point at one of them (god) and say this one is not true, simply because many people think it is true, seems just as silly to me as pointing at one and saying it is true. It could be any of them and really we have no way of knowing which it is.

Are you agnostic about unicorns? If not, why not?

Atheists do seem to attack religion though. We Christians on here just live and let die, so on and so forth.

Just remember - don't put all your eggs in one basket, etc.

Ever been in the real world? Ever said the pledge of allegiance? Ever looked at money? Heard of Intelligent Design in schools? Heard of the Pro-Life movement? Do you know that gay marriage is illegal in 49/50 states? That Catholics missionaries tell people not to use condoms in Africa?

Those are a few reasons why I am anti-religious.

 

[NinjaGeek]

Atheist belief sets are not random or faith based as mentioned above. I'm sure most atheists will tell you that they don't know how the universe came into being, but that is the reasonable view pending evidence.

Atheism by itself has nothing to do with being anti-religion. However, when looking at it objectively, one usually becomes anti-religion.

To me most atheists are agnostics who mislabel themselves with the intent to further distance themselves from religions. To me it seems like agnostics are saying "I don't know how the universe was created." while atheists are saying "I don't know how the universe was created, but it definitely wasn't this way", to me there doesn't seem to be any reason for singling out that one way except to say to all the religious people out there that you think their way is wrong.

 

[cookiecutter]

To me most atheists are agnostics who mislabel themselves with the intent to further distance themselves from religions. To me it seems like agnostics are saying "I don't know how the universe was created." while atheists are saying "I don't know how the universe was created, but it definitely wasn't this way", to me there doesn't seem to be any reason for singling out that one way except to say to all the religious people out there that you think their way is wrong.

I think you are using the wrong definition of agnostic then.

 

[Valerie]

To me most atheists are agnostics who mislabel themselves with the intent to further distance themselves from religions. To me it seems like agnostics are saying "I don't know how the universe was created." while atheists are saying "I don't know how the universe was created, but it definitely wasn't this way", to me there doesn't seem to be any reason for singling out that one way except to say to all the religious people out there that you think their way is wrong.

There are an infinite number of ways the universe was not created, but the most widely held one is what religions say.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I know what you are saying, but I don't think faith is the right word to use. Faith means something very different to religious believers than it does in the way you are using it. Atheists base their beliefs in rationality, reason and logic. They investigate their beliefs to make sure they are true. This is the opposite of "faith" as commonly used.

You are right that nothing can be "known" as in known to be the absolute truth, which I think is what you were aiming at. We could be missing something or God could come down from heaven tomorrow. However, it is not faiththat allows me to believe in the lack of god, but rather critical investigation of the evidence.

"Critical investigation of the evidence" (lack thereof actually) is a scientific point of view, and I can tell you're not going to move from your scientific point of view, and that's fine by me. Since we are both atheists, I think we differ on a micro-scale. I place myself in a position in which god cannot, will not, and has never existed. Your idea posits that if science came up with some evidence to prove existence of a god, you'd give up atheism and convert. My idea is that this is impossible because science and religion can never come into contact (one believes solely in human reason/logic, and one believes in the lack thereof). You are substantiating the possibility (however small, mind you) that science, created by humans, can find evidence of something which hypothetically created humans. This is impossible, and illogical.

 

[NinjaGeek]

Are you agnostic about unicorns? If not, why not?

There's less reason to believe in unicorns, as unicorns (unlike god) provide no explanation as to why we wouldn't notice them. Where as with god there is. However I would say I am agnostic to unicorns as they could theoretically exist
A) On another planet
B) In a different time (ie. unicorns will someday evolve from horses, or have already evolved from horses and gone extinct and left no evidence of their existence as their horns were not made of bone or any other substance that would leave behind traces of them)

God is more likely than unicorns, and unicorn are more likely than a specific relgion like catholism for example.

And to me it's equally as silly to call yourself an Atheist, as it would be to make up a term for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns and call yourself that.

I think you are using the wrong definition of agnostic then.

I would say I don't fit in with the typical agnostic, but it's the closest term to describe my belief set as I don't believe or disbelieve in god.

There are an infinite number of ways the universe was not created, but the most widely held one is what religions say.

hence why I said that atheism is used specifically for the purpose of distancing itself from other religions. But in terms of your own personal beliefs it makes no sense to me why you would single god out and not other improbable beliefs.

 

[cookiecutter]

"Critical investigation of the evidence" (lack thereof actually) is a scientific point of view, and I can tell you're not going to move from your scientific point of view, and that's fine by me. Since we are both atheists, I think we differ on a micro-scale. I place myself in a position in which god cannot, will not, and has never existed. Your idea posits that if science came up with some evidence to prove existence of a god, you'd give up atheism and convert. My idea is that this is impossible because science and religion can never come into contact (one believes solely in human reason/logic, and one believes in the lack thereof). You are substantiating the possibility (however small, mind you) that science, created by humans, can find evidence of something which hypothetically created humans. This is impossible, and illogical.

Science (theoretically) can test ANY effect upon the natural universe. If god had an effect, he could be tested, even if he created humans. If he did not have any effect on the universe, his existence is irrelevant. Obviously all religions posit some sort of supernatural that has an effect on the world, and therefore they can be tested

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Science (theoretically) can test ANY effect upon the natural universe. If god had an effect, he could be tested, even if he created humans. If he did not have any effect on the universe, his existence is irrelevant. Obviously all religions posit some sort of supernatural that has an effect on the world, and therefore they can be tested

I like this. It deadlocks the existence of god, and proves what I thought was a new idea about the ultimate nonexistence of a god (i.e. it is impossible for science to prove its existence because they are on different levels of fucking "being") incorrect. Good show.

 

[cookiecutter]

There's less reason to believe in unicorns, as unicorns (unlike god) provide no explanation as to why we wouldn't notice them. Where as with god there is. However I would say I am agnostic to unicorns as they could theoretically exist
A) On another planet
B) In a different time (ie. unicorns will someday evolve from horses, or have already evolved from horses and gone extinct and left no evidence of their existence as their horns were not made of bone or any other substance that would leave behind traces of them)

God is more likely than unicorns, and unicorn are more likely than a specific relgion like catholism for example.

I really don't think a familiar looking animal is more likely than a being which created the universe, reads our thoughts, or whatever else various people believe. I think you misunderstood my point about unicorns (on earth and in the present, didn't think I had to clarify that). The default position on something should be lack of belief. Someone tells you there is a unicorn in their backyard, you don't just believe them. You go to their yard and see for yourself. You also don't say "well I don't believe you, but I also don't disbelieve you." You disbelieve until belief is justified.

EDIT for clarity: Also "I don't know" is not mutually exclusive to disbelief. To continue my example it would be like saying "I don't believe you have a unicorn in your backyard, but I don't know what is there"

And to me it's equally as silly to call yourself an Atheist, as it would be to make up a term for someone who doesn't believe in unicorns and call yourself that.

I would say I don't fit in with the typical agnostic, but it's the closest term to describe my belief set as I don't believe or disbelieve in god.

hence why I said that atheism is used specifically for the purpose of distancing itself from other religions. But in terms of your own personal beliefs it makes no sense to me why you would single god out and not other improbable beliefs.

I don't understand what you are saying. Atheism is a term for not believing in god. We didn't make it up for any reason, that's just what the word means. You make it sound like some conspiracy. There are terms for people who only belief in rational things, for example rationalist/ism and empiricist/ism. Atheism is just the term most applicable to religion.

 

[Alter]

Ever been in the real world? Ever said the pledge of allegiance? Ever looked at money? Heard of Intelligent Design in schools? Heard of the Pro-Life movement? Do you know that gay marriage is illegal in 49/50 states? That Catholics missionaries tell people not to use condoms in Africa?

Those are a few reasons why I am anti-religious.

Ever heard of the population of the Catholic religion? Yea, dont judge the whole religion on how a few people act/interpret the bible and act of their idea on religion.

On the subject of gay marriage and abortion. Keep them illegal. I don't find the act of killing premature infants an acceptable thing in any society.

 

[cookiecutter]

Ever heard of the population of the Catholic religion? Yea, dont judge the whole religion on how a few people act/interpret the bible and act of their idea on religion.

I feel it is perfectly acceptable to judge a religion on the doctrine they espouse. I will judge the religious individually.

On the subject of gay marriage and abortion. Keep them illegal. I don't find the act of killing premature infants an acceptable thing in any society.

1) Fetus != infant

2) Why should we keep gay marriage illegal?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You can't just discount the entire first 3-4 questions he posed.

 

[Alter]

I feel it is perfectly acceptable to judge a religion on the doctrine they espouse. I will judge the religious individually.


2) Why should we keep gay marriage illegal?

1)You do understand that a doctrine that is espoused by that Catholic faith alone, not including countless other sects, is split into multiple different ideas. What one group differs from another
group.

2)More or less an pointless comment that I should have left out on gay marriage. Lets leave that for another discussion.

 

[cookiecutter]

1)You do understand that a doctrine that is espoused by that Catholic faith alone, not including countless other sects, is split into multiple different ideas. What one group differs from another
group.

I do know this, but I don't want to say "except the ones that don't agree with this" after every sentence. It should be obvious.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Ever heard of the population of the Catholic religion? Yea, dont judge the whole religion on how a few people act/interpret the bible and act of their idea on religion.

On the subject of gay marriage and abortion. Keep them illegal. I don't find the act of killing premature infants an acceptable thing in any society.

"Republicans really give a shit about you before you're born, but once you're born FUCK YOU!" - George Carlin