Why Atheism?

[Spider AL]

Sure, I always enjoy providing evidence.

 

Here are some Dictionary.com definitions of the word "Delusion":

 

1. A false belief or opinion.

2. The state of being deluded.

3. A mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea.

 

So as you can see, the word "deluded" is an accurate description of those who hold religious beliefs.

 

As for your assertion that the word is "bullying and condescending", that's just nonsense, and of course it is merely your personal, subjective (and clearly biased) opinion.

[Nancy Allen``]

As well as windu's, Jae's and SkinWalker's.

 

bul·ly1 /ˈbʊli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bool-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -lies, verb, -lied, -ly·ing, adjective, interjection

–noun 1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

 

con·de·scend·ing /ˌkɒndəˈsɛndɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-duh-sen-ding] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors' condescending cordiality.

[Spider AL]

Do you really believe Skinwalker thinks that calling a religious person "deluded" is bullying? If so, you're wrong:

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker:

Finally, Spider is saying religion is a delusion because... it is. Unless it can be empirically demonstrated that "religious knowledge" has some evidenciary basis in reality, there is only delusion left. The problem is, you're taking delusion to be a derogatory term when it is but a logical and parsimonious one that most succinctly defines the effect religion has upon the human psyche.

So Skin doesn't agree with you.

 

As for Jae and Windu... They may or may not think that the word "deluded" is nasty and bullying. But either way I really don't think that would make you correct.

[Windu Chi]

Sure, I always enjoy providing evidence.

 

Here are some Dictionary.com definitions of the word "Delusion":

 

1. A false belief or opinion.

2. The state of being deluded.

3. A mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea.

 

So as you can see, the word "deluded" is an accurate description of those who hold religious beliefs.

Thats not entirely accurate, Spider.

We don't know if any of our beliefs or opinions are false about the existence of God or Gods.

Also you are really bullsh*ting yourself, to believe that these people got to be deluded to believe in a creator or creators of our universe; you are also being delusional, to hold that stubborn opinion or belief.

You keep on only considering the evidence only from our small local perspective of Earth, because it is "lacking" here.

The consideration of Earth as the only perspective for the possible existence of God or Gods is flawed.

You are really missing the bigger picture here; the infinite existence.

As for your assertion that the word is "bullying and condescending", that's just nonsense, and of course it is merely your personal, subjective (and clearly biased) opinion.

Thats is not nonsense it is true; I have seen several complaints from several people in this thread about your behavior, Spider.

 

Also I already know you are ignoring me, so you don't have to say, "I'm not responding to Windu's comments".

I have gotten the damn message over and over again, Man.

[Nancy Allen``]

Spider Al,

 

I agree with all of your points. But Jae's criticism of your delivery is spot on. We'll be more effective at conveying reason if more care is taken to avoid condescension, though I'm probably guilty of it too.

 

Your reply.

 

There is nothing condescending about my posts. If I appear condescending, it is because I always choose to debate with people I consider to be touting irrational arguments / holding irrational beliefs.

 

And...

 

And you know, often I feel as though I should be harsher in my criticisms than I currently am.

 

I think I can safely rest my case.

[Spider AL]

And what do any of those random quotations have to do with the question of whether calling religious people "deluded" is bullying?

 

I'll be honest, I can't see that they have anything to do with your assertion that the word "deluded" is inherently nasty and unpleasant.

 

Are you now just trying to imply things about me personally? If so, feel free. It won't make your arguments any less illogical, and it won't make my arguments any less logical.

 

Religious people are deluded. There is no evidence to support their belief, and so they are deluding themselves. This isn't an insult, it's a simple statement of rational fact.

[Nancy Allen``]

To call people names and go beyond debating Atheism and abuse those who believe it is wrong. To say that religion is a delusion and people who believe it are deluded is wrong, especially from someone who believes they take such a moral stance. If this is how you see morality, if you refuse to accept that people follow religion, then I charge that your view of Atheism is delusional and you are deluded.

[Windu Chi]

 

Religious people are deluded. There is no evidence to support their belief, and so they are deluding themselves. This isn't an insult, it's a simple statement of rational fact.

As many people on this forum know by my angry red color comments about religion and God, that I extremely hate God and not to well comfortable with religion.

So, I could be seen as being two-faced with my following comments.

 

Give the very obvious fact that we exist now and the our local universe seem to be infinite if the curvature of it's spacetime metric is flat.

If we exist now, then how the hell we come to be without a creator ; also you have to explain every n creator before God, which will be a infinite explanation.

So, infinite supreme beings or Gods in a infinite existence.

The very idea of a beginning of time is absurd; because how could a creature create us if it has no time to start with; well from physics all matter and energy interactions have to have time already active, for processes to occur; A beginning creator creating time, can't because the define processes of creation of time can't proceed unless our current physical laws are invalid respect to the rest of existence.

No time to begin with, no motion to create something, according to relativity.

Unless, this theory have to be alter on the larger scale of existence.

Any creator will have to have a previous creator ad infinitum.

We can't exist without something creating our universe; that will in turn create us.

Well, that will be the logical argument, as I'm sure you know.

 

So, I can't for sure believe religious people are deluded with their beliefs, if I do so I will really be sh*ting myself.

I'm stuck on Earth the same as you, I don't know what is real out there, so I just believe all possiblities are true; a contradiction, but that is the only thing that keep me from going mad about how everything I experience come to be.

I just throw the dice every red moon about these complex topics.

Also I got to believe, base off my bias anger that God at least exist, since I hate him/her so much.

[Grey Master]

I for one don't believe in any religion, but I respect others who do believe that there is

a God or creator or whatever......

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

To call people names and go beyond debating Atheism and abuse those who believe it is wrong.

Abuse is against forum rules, Nancy. If you think anyone's been abusive in this thread or any other, you should report that abuse to a moderator who will then censure the abusive party.

 

Let's be serious though, no atheist has been abusive in this thread, myself included.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

To say that religion is a delusion and people who believe it are deluded is wrong, especially from someone who believes they take such a moral stance. If this is how you see morality, if you refuse to accept that people follow religion, then I charge that your view of Atheism is delusional and you are deluded.

To say that religion is based on a theistic delusion is rationally correct. It is not "wrong", it is right.

 

And people who believe that there are deities are deluded, because they have no evidence nor logical argument upon which to base their belief. It's a delusional belief.

 

And since calling a delusion a delusion isn't abusive, but is instead logical and factual... it's not immoral. Therefore I have no moral issue with it. Therefore your contention is disproven.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Darth Reader:

I for one don't believe in any religion, but I respect others who do believe that there is

a God or creator or whatever......

I also respect the people: If the religious people are respectable, I respect the religious people. But I don't respect their delusional beliefs.

 

I respect their right to hold their beliefs, but I don't respect the beliefs. And all beliefs can legitimately be criticised. My beliefs, the beliefs of others... everyone's beliefs. That is the wonderful thing about a free society... we can criticise the beliefs of others, and in so doing we can logically examine them and divine their intrinsic worth. In other words, we can discover what is true.

 

Atheists get a lot of flak for critically dissecting religious beliefs. But considering religion's effect on society, it's our duty to do so. It's our right to do so. It's both necessary, and laudable.

[Windu Chi]

Abuse is against forum rules, Nancy. If you think anyone's been abusive in this thread or any other, you should report that abuse to a moderator who will then censure the abusive party.

Now, you are being sarcastic toward her.

 

 

And people who believe that there are deities are deluded, because they have no evidence nor logical argument upon which to base their belief. It's a delusional belief.

You are really abandoning some basic logic here, how can our universe come from nowhere?

If you follow basic logical postulates strictly.

The asbsent of evidence is not evidence of absence; you are being delusional if you believe that no evidence is proof that surpreme beings don't exist.

[Nancy Allen``]

I would report abusive posts but I prefer to point out the fallacy of such posts, and how hiding behind 'oh it's not breaking the rules' and the like is a bullying tactic.

 

Browsing the FCC thread I found this comment.

 

The idea that showing anonymous coffins on a news report would decrease your personal safety in any meaningful way is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia.

 

This offended Jae greatly and when I said it was a sickening comment to make it was considered ad hominim. Would saying that religion is a delusion and people who believe in it also be considered ad hominim?

[SkinWalker]

.

[align=center]Enough.[/align]

.

[Nancy Allen``]

Would my last post be fair enough Skin? Is it alright for me to ask whether or not saying that religion is a delusion and people who believe religion are deluded is ad hominim?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The asbsent of evidence is not evidence of absence

People say that when they have weak arguments. Also, I don't believe Spider said anything about the universe coming out of nowhere.

 

@Nancy Allen``-

The thread's about Atheism, not the nature of Spider's (rather entertaining) posts and whether or not they're offensive.

[SkinWalker]

Deluded is an objective and logically arrived label in the same way as saying that someone is oppositional if they consistently oppose others; conservative if they reject change; progressive if they embrace it. Deluded can no more be ad hominem in nature than either of these.

 

It isn't akin to using subjective and unreasoned labels such as "idiot," "stupid," or "bonehead." Each of these are ad hominem in nature because they are qualities that cannot be quantified or objectively examined and are only assigned to be derisive and pejorative.

 

While "deluded" *can* be used in a pejorative sense, in the strictest definition of the word, it isn't. Moreover, applying it to religion, while perceived as pejorative and with the intent of derision, is appropriate since religion cannot be objectively and logically quantified. That religion is a delusion is evident by the very fact that there are thousands of religions, most with very different and often contrary doctrines and dogma. Obviously they can't all be right; obviously, at least some must be deluded. Why not yours?

[Nancy Allen``]

Aheh, what religion? Anyway I see your point, and to get back on topic one thing Atheists can point to and support their position is how people who believe in religion become intolerent of views that arn't there own. We've seen this occur since the time religion was first created. Certainly a criticism that can be levelled at religion.

[Windu Chi]

People say that when they have weak arguments. Also, I don't believe Spider said anything about the universe coming out of nowhere.

.

Then what hell is the conclusion if there aren't no Gods in existence?

How the hell do we come to be then?

It is preposterous to say that the matter and energy coalesce by random convergence with no beginning interaction of a outside influence, also you have to explain every n influence outside that seed influence of our universe, indefinitely.

 

I see, any questions about creation is preposterous when the logical principle of the excluded middle is taken into account; a infinite existence will involve propositions as both true and false.

The very idea of creation is a contradiction, if our current finite postulates of logic is followed to their final conclusions.

 

postulate: a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning.

 

The idea of accepting anything as fact with no other consideration is flawed respect to a infinite reality.

Accepting anything is bias because of our opinions and emotions influencing it.

 

Accepting: React favorably to; consider right and proper.

Once again infinity is not taken into account; bias.

Can't consider anything as right and proper if you don't consider the rest of existence, I believe.

My beliefs are bias, of course.

 

Reality is just preposterous!

But still very, very fascinating to me.

[Spider AL]

Now that the moderator has confirmed what I've been telling you about the word "deluded", Nancy, perhaps you and I can succeed in examining the details of the issue that we have so far not been able to.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

one thing Atheists can point to and support their position is how people who believe in religion become intolerent of views that arn't there own. We've seen this occur since the time religion was first created. Certainly a criticism that can be levelled at religion.

It is true that many religions are intrinsically intolerant in nature. In fact, most monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) can legitimately be classified as basically intolerant in nature, because of their contention that ONLY their particular followers are worthy enough to receive their god's favour.

 

However, whether religions are intolerant or tolerant is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether one should be atheist or not.

 

Unless there is evidence to support the idea that there is a god, one must be atheist, rationally speaking. Therefore it doesn't matter if deistic religions are tolerant or intolerant, they're always based on irrationality. And that's the most important point. Not the specific issue of tolerance.

[igyman]

Then what hell is the conclusion if there aren't no Gods in existence?

The conclusion is that humans and the planet Earth weren't created by some deity, but are a result of a multitude of very complex chemical processes.

 

How the hell do we come to be then?

 

I took the liberty of providing you with two excerpts from a very detailed NASA article about planet Earth:

 

Most scientists believe that the solar system began as a thin cloud of gas and dust in space. The sun itself may have formed from a portion of the cloud that was thicker than the rest. The cloud's own gravity caused it to start contracting, and dust and gas were drawn in toward the center. Much of the cloud collapsed to the center to form a star, the sun, but a great ring of material remained orbiting around the star. Particles in the ring collided to make larger objects, which in turn collided to build up the planets of the solar system in a process called accretion. Scientists believe that many small planets formed and then collided to make larger planets.

 

For most of Earth's history, life consisted mainly of microscopic, single-celled creatures. The earliest fossils of larger creatures with many cells are found in Precambrian rocks that are about 600 million years old. Many of these creatures differed from any living things today.

 

Here's the link to the full article, if you're interested in reading it in detail:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass with this, but rather to show that there is a very convincing, logical and proof-based history of Earth and humans.

[Windu Chi]

The conclusion is that humans and the planet Earth weren't created by some deity, but are a result of a multitude of very complex chemical processes.

 

Sorry to be rude but,

:lol:THAT IS STRATIGHT ********, THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES THAT OVER TIME FORM ATOMS, THAT LATER FORM THE CHEMICALS, THAT LATER CREATED LIFE OVER THE MILLIONS OF YEARS.

HAVE TO BE PUT INTO THE PROCESS, BY A OUTSIDE SEED INFLUENCE.

 

YOU STILL ALSO HAVE TO KEEP EXPLAINING ALL THE INFINITE N INFLUENCES AD INFINITUM.

I took the liberty of providing you with two excerpts from a very detailed NASA article about planet Earth:

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the link to the full article, if you're interested in reading it in detail:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass with this, but rather to show that there is a very convincing, logical and proof-based history of Earth and humans.

That is no complete proof if infinity is not taken into account.

You can't ignore infinity, people.

I know how the Earth was created.

I study physics and very complex mathematics every damn DAY.

And I know how life form base off our science of biology, on this planet.

 

I'm talking about the what seem to be a, preposterous beginning of existence and time.

[Nancy Allen``]

It is true that many religions are intrinsically intolerant in nature. In fact, most monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) can legitimately be classified as basically intolerant in nature, because of their contention that ONLY their particular followers are worthy enough to receive their god's favour.

 

There's that, and there's the intolerents who attack any belief they do not agree with. These people, whether they be Christians who bomb abortion clinics, Muslim terrorists, ect, marginalise their religion and people see it in a very negative light. America has certainly done this with Islam, as bull**** as it is, but the actions of a few who do not hold such beliefs, only claim to, have ****ed things royally for everyone who follows Islam.

[igyman]

THAT IS STRATIGHT ********

Well, that's your opinion, but I admit that this article doesn't present the complete data about the creation of the universe and the creation of Earth, despite it still being very detailed.

I have listened to a number of lectures on this topic and also seen a lot of scientific documentaries, so though I can't at the moment find an internet article that presents what I heard on one of those lectures, I'll try to retell the theory as I recall it (and I admit my recollection is not detailed).

Many topics were discussed on that lecture, like the black holes, the wormholes (no, it's not the same thing), neutrinos, etc, etc, but I'll focus on the part relevant to our current issue. Namely, the theory is that the universe was once the size of a dot, smaller even. In the middle of that tiny microscopic dot was a ball of matter. The ball of matter exploded and the universe expanded as it still continues to do. The matter scattered across the universe, mostly in the forms of gas clouds that, as described in that NASA article, eventually formed stars, planets and all other celestial bodies. Accirding to this theory there's a possibility that one day the process will reverse itself and the universe will implode back into that tiny dot, destroying everything.

It sounds as an SF fairly tale the way I tell it, for which I apologize since this is a very serious theory.

 

THE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES THAT OVER TIME FORM ATOMS, THAT LATER FORM THE CHEMICALS, THAT LATER CREATED LIFE OVER THE MILLIONS OF YEARS.

HAVE TO BE PUT INTO THE PROCESS, BY A OUTSIDE SEED INFLUENCE.

And you're trying to imply that this seed influence is a god? Pardon me for not agreeing. Science doesn't have all the facts yet, but at least it's doing it's best to collect them. If there is an outside influence (which would seem logical, if the universe has an end), the chances of it being divine are less than microscopic. Why? Because the fact remains that there still isn't any evidence that proves the existence of the divine and right now nobody is trying very hard to find it.

This has gone a little off-topic, so I suggest we end it here, or continue it on a separate thread.

[Windu Chi]

Many topics were discussed on that lecture, like the black holes, the wormholes (no, it's not the same thing), neutrinos, etc, etc, but I'll focus on the part relevant to our current issue. Namely, the theory is that the universe was once the size of a dot, smaller even. In the middle of that tiny microscopic dot was a ball of matter. The ball of matter exploded and the universe expanded as it still continues to do. The matter scattered across the universe, mostly in the forms of gas clouds that, as described in that NASA article, eventually formed stars, planets and all other celestial bodies. Accirding to this theory there's a possibility that one day the process will reverse itself and the universe will implode back into that tiny dot, destroying everything.

You still have to answer the question with our basic postulates of logic,

what started the dot and what started every n what that started this dot.

Our universe is not the only one if M-Theory have any say about it.

Also you have to explain where do time come from.

 

And you're trying to imply that this seed influence is a god? Pardon me for not agreeing. Science doesn't have all the facts yet, but at least it's doing it's best to collect them. If there is an outside influence (which would seem logical, if the universe has an end), the chances of it being divine are less than microscopic.

Not, one god infinite gods.

 

M-Theory(Matrix Theory) ~link to this theory for those of you who are interested.

[ET Warrior]

It's just as impossible to explain where that dot itself came from as it is to explain where 'Infinite gods" come from. There is no way of knowing, so why assume infinite gods? It is irrational and illogical.