Why Atheism?

[Spider AL]

Well if you refuse to back your assertions up with evidence, we can discard your assertions as untrue.

 

And... you used an example of religious people (muslim fundamentalists) acting however the heck they want... to defend religion and criticise atheists?

 

You'll pardon me if I don't consider that very effective as an argument.

[Nancy Allen``]

Okay, you want to plahy that way, prove with a shadow of a doubt there is no God.

[Spider AL]

First, you prove (without a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese.

[Nancy Allen``]

Don't sit there ego masterbating, answer the question. Can you really prove beyond all doubt the foolishness of following religion?

[Spider AL]

I will answer your question, once you answer mine: can you prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese?

 

If you admit that you cannot prove this, then logically you must accept the fact that the ideas of a christian "god" or an islamic "god" (or any god) are just as unproven as the idea of sentient slices of cheddar cheese. Therefore none of them exist, rationally speaking.

[Nancy Allen``]

I think so...not one person follows that type of religion and yet hundreds of millions are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect.

 

Actually, don't try and prove the non existence of God, answer this. Why are you so determined to destory religion?

[Spider AL]

I'll ask again: can you prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese?

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I think so...not one person follows that type of religion and yet hundreds of millions are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect.

Okay, you've just said "if millions of people believe something, it must be true".

 

Which is utter, utter nonsense. Totally illogical.

 

So is Christianity right because it's currently the biggest religion? Was it WRONG when it was only a small religion in early roman times?

 

Totally illogical.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Why are you so determined to destory religion?

I'm determined to point out the fact that theistic beliefs are irrational and illogical. I doubt that it'll "destroy religion". But if religion WAS destroyed by my logical critique of its beliefs... that wouldn't be a bad thing. Because those beliefs are illogical.

 

Do you think people SHOULD delude themselves, lie to themselves and be generally irrational?

[Nancy Allen``]

Do you think people should be self apointed thought Gestapo who are self rightious and believe they have the power to destroy lives? Because that is exactly the way Atheism is portrayed to me reading about it here.

[Spider AL]

"destroy lives"? Where do you get this from? How is atheism going to "destroy lives"? How is pointing out the rational and logical facts going to "destroy lives"?

 

If you were to accept that theistic beliefs are irrational... would that "destroy your life"? I don't think so. I think it would rather improve your life.

 

And finally I'll ask again. Can you prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese?

 

If you fail to answer this time, I'll assume that the answer is "no", and that you've proven my case.

[Nancy Allen``]

Some people base their entire lives around religion. For Atheists to keep at them about there being no God and keep at them and keep at them until they broke their will would destroy lives. Now I ask you again, do you think people should be self apointed thought Gestapo who are self rightious and believe they have the power to destroy lives? Say yes and you're saying you agree that Atheism is to be used to bully others. Say no and you go back on every portrayal of Atheism you have presented to me. If you don't answer in the next post, to use your logic, you'll prove to me that you're too afraid to answer the question on the basis of your answer proving that Atheism is exactly how I described it.

 

As for your question, I answered it the best I can, not being a religious expert.

[Spider AL]

Some people base their entire lives around religion. For Atheists to keep at them about there being no God and keep at them and keep at them until they broke their will would destroy lives.

Lol. No it wouldn't destroy their lives. In such circumstances, It would force them to build a life- not around a delusion- but around sense, reason and rationality. That's not a bad thing. It's improving their lives, not destroying their lives.

 

I ask you again, do you think people should be self apointed thought Gestapo who are self rightious and believe they have the power to destroy lives? Say yes and you're saying you agree that Atheism is to be used to bully others. Say no and you go back on every portrayal of Atheism you have presented to me. If you don't answer in the next post, to use your logic, you'll prove to me that you're too afraid to answer the question on the basis of your answer proving that Atheism is exactly how I described it.

I've answered your question. Atheism isn't "thought gestapoism", it's being rational, and speaking rational truths.

 

Atheism won't destroy anyone's life. Rational truths CANNOT destroy anyone's life.

 

This directly answers your (frankly offensive) question. Onwards:

 

As for your question, I answered it the best I can, not being a religious expert.

You didn't answer it at all. I'll ask again: Can you prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese?

 

If not, you MUST LOGICALLY ACCEPT... that the idea of a "god" is also unproven, therefore it is also effectively untrue.

 

If the cheese does not exist, neither do gods.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, you haven't answer my question. That shows you're too scared to, and since you are too scared to it must mean that, by golly, Atheism doesn't exist. Wow, using your chop logic really does work.

[Spider AL]

Of course I've answered your question, I've said: "I've answered your question. Atheism isn't "thought gestapoism", it's being rational, and speaking rational truths. Atheism won't destroy anyone's life. Rational truths CANNOT destroy anyone's life."

 

And secondly, it's clear that you haven't grasped my logic if that's your best attempt at imitating it.

 

Answer the cheese question. So far, it's looking as though you can't answer the cheese question without invalidating your entire position. It's getting close to QED...

[Nancy Allen``]

Atheism isn't thought Gestapoism? Well you've gone back on every portrayal you've given of it. And as for answering your question, I answered it as best I can. Do I need to say it in French or German for you to get the hint?

[Spider AL]

So now you're admitting that I DID answer the question, but now you're directly implying that I'm a "thought gestapo". Not very mature, but at least it's an admission of sorts.

 

And as for answering your question, I answered it as best I can. Do I need to say it in French or German for you to get the hint?

What was your answer then? (In English.)

[Nancy Allen``]

You're just going around in circles now. Answer this, why is religion so offensive to you that you seek to take it from those who believe it? It's illogical? BIG ****ING DEAL! Does it hurt you or offend you so much that you just have to take it away from them?

[Spider AL]

I'm going around in circles? I'm just trying to follow you.

 

Come now, you claim to have actually answered the cheese question. Well, what was your answer? Let's evaluate it together.

 

Answer this, why is religion so offensive to you that you seek to take it from those who believe it? It's illogical? BIG ****ING DEAL! Does it hurt you or offend you so much that you just have to take it away from them?

I have actually answered this. I'm not out to "take religion away" from people, nor am I out to "destroy religion". I am merely pointing out the lack of logic in theistic beliefs.

 

If my logical arguments happen "take religion away" from someone, it's a tertiary effect. It's not my goal, really.

 

And as I said before, would it be such a bad thing if because of atheist logic, some religious person lost their delusion? A rational life is a moral life, it's a life that makes sense, it's a life with rational goals and purposes and the search for truth and right. It's a good life. And best of all, it's not a delusional life.

[Nancy Allen``]

And what gives you the right to do that?

[Ray Jones]

Nancy, what gives a teacher the right to point out that 4 + 4 = 9 is actually wrong and the correct result would be 8? Or, why would YOU defend your result of 3 + 5 = 8 against someone who says 3 + 5 = 7? Moreover, HOW would you defend it?

 

Probably a better way of asking that was 'what, if anything, do atheists use in place of the tools like prayer/times of worship/other supports unique to religion?' Is knowing a friend is thinking of you before you, say, go into surgery an equivalent to having a friend pray for you?

Frankly, I wouldn't feel much better if I'd knew someone prays for me, since I do not believe it would help more than a plain "thinking of me". However, I think I would substitute "knowing that someone prays for me" with "knowing that someone thinks of me", because in my opinion that's exactly what prayers have been invented for: expressing feelings, wishes, thoughts and sorrows; to speak it out, to get to know oneself, to become aware of the own desires and stuff, or to share with others. Also, I think I'm a mentally strong person, and I don't depend on the knowledge that others might think of me. If a friend of mine were up to go to the surgery (what already happened, of course), I'd simply hope for him to be okay, if I have the opportunity to let him know, I'll do, and I'll share these thoughts with others if necessary. Not very different to a prayer, eh? Except maybe I just talk to "real" persons and actually get responses. ;~~

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What gives a teacher the right to point out that 4 + 4 = 9 is actually wrong and the correct result would be 8?

He/she has a piece of paper hanging on their wall that says he/she is allowed to do stuff like that.

 

Or, why would YOU defend your result of 3 + 5 = 8 against someone who says 3 + 5 = 7?

The general consensus is that three and five equal eight, if they don't want to believe it, they won't get out of elementary school. I'd encourage them to believe it even if it was just to get them out of the 3rd grade.

[Ray Jones]

The fudge! To the monkey cage with you!

[Mace MacLeod]

Round and round we go...

 

And what gives you the right to do that?

That's the same right you have to tell him he's got it wrong. The same right Jehovah's Witnesses have to knock on my door and wave copies of The Watchtower in my face. The same right the Catholic brothers who ran the school up the street from me where I grew up to announce I'm going to hell because I wasn't Catholic. The same right that Hindus have to preach that karma determines your next life after reincarnation. It's the right to state your religious beliefs and stand behind them. The fact they don't coincide with yours does not make it an attack on your faith any more than pointing out flaws in US foreign policy means a person hates the US.

 

Can you prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that we aren't really ruled by sinister, sentient, psychic slices of cheddar cheese?

 

If not, you MUST LOGICALLY ACCEPT... that the idea of a "god" is also unproven, therefore it is also effectively untrue.

 

If the cheese does not exist, neither do gods.

Now, here's the problem I have with that. It's the supposition that god or gods being unproven relegating them to effective nonexistence. It doesn't leave open the possibility that we as small, tiny limited little creatures who are only just beginning to realize how little we really know about the universe and its contents might not have the ability to find a god or godlike entities with our present scientific and mental level of development. For all we know, the universe could be chock-a-block crammed with gods of all descriptions, some even taking the form of telepathic hunks of camembert. There may be levels of existence and awareness that our tiny little biological brains are ill-equipped to perceive and comprehend, so therefore our perceptions and logical constructs might not be the ultimate arbiter of what exists and what doesn't.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

And what gives you the right to do that?

What gives me the moral right to speak rational truths? Why, that would be... the inviolable moral right (and responsibility) to speak rational truths.

 

Everyone has this right (and responsibility). And I've stated this already.

 

Now answer the cheese question.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

He/she has a piece of paper hanging on their wall that says he/she is allowed to do stuff like that.

Nope. Moral rights and responsibilities supercede legalistic/professional rights and responsibilities. Even if the teacher had no certificates, even if certificates weren't required to be an accredited teacher, the teacher would still have a moral right to speak rational truths, and a moral responsibility to teach rational truths.

 

Originally Posted by jmac7142:

The general consensus is that three and five equal eight

There is (as you are aware) a leeeeetle more to determining what is rationally correct, than relying on the "general consensus".

[Ray Jones]

Like take three items, put another five next to them, and count them altogether? -- To obvious.

 

I wonder if the cheese monster is ever afraid of getting possibly eaten by a starving worshipper.

[SkinWalker]

Okay, you want to plahy that way, prove with a shadow of a doubt there is no God.

 

Except that's not the way it's played either. Those with religious superstitions make a positive claim that there *is* a god or gods, therefore it is their burden to prove. Those who don't accept their claims shouldn't have to disprove the existence of the supernatural, something you're fully aware cannot be done since there is no physical manifestation in reality.

 

If the superstitious are going to make positive claims about magical beings, claims that have a direct impact on the lives of me and my family due to the attempts to codify their superstitions in government and force my family to endure them (i.e. teaching their superstitions as facts in public schools, etc.), then I should have full right, as an atheist to criticize these superstitions at every chance.

 

The O.P. question is why atheism and it looks like Jae is upset at Spider's reasoning, but I have to agree with him. The reason for "why" is reason. The claims of theology aren't tenable and therefore should be criticized or, at the very least, discarded by the reasoned mind.

 

Most atheists never interact with theists regarding belief and disbelief. They go on about their daily lives, many quietly nodding their heads or even pretending to believe so as not to 'make waves' in society. Personally, I find this to be a an intolerable expectation. It should be the other way around. Theists should have to practice their superstitions in private and be ashamed of their beliefs. It shouldn't be acceptable to be in the middle of a very serious business discussion and have one of the stakeholders make a comment regarding his superstitious beliefs that quotes scripture or mentions an appeal to a supernatural deity. And such mentions are often actually appeals to the beliefs of others to influence them rather than a deity. As if closing a deal with you is akin to closing a deal with a god.

 

Atheists/agnostics don't "believe in atheism/agnosticism." These aren't religions, they're lack of them. If someone were to ask if I believe in Bigfoot, I'd offer the same argument I offer the theists: I'm an "agnostic atheist" regarding Bigfoot; I don't believe he exists because I have an understanding of science that doesn't follow an expectation for Bigfoot and there is sufficient evidence to show that humans have concocted the story -but I can't, obviously, say conclusively that there is no Bigfoot since I'm not able to examine every square foot of northwestern North America.

 

That there is a god or gods is a positive claim. And one without evidence. This is why atheism.

 

There is no need for theism to explain altruism or community. Religion didn't invent these concepts, these concepts invented religion, which is very evident in the human and animal record. Altruism exists in other primate species besides people. Moreover, it exists in all human cultures regardless of their diverse, and very often contradictory, religious superstitions. As does community and social support. As an atheist, I participate in many social support and community settings that are without any religious significance. These community functions offer support for a variety of charitable that range from academic to clothing and feeding the poor.

 

I truly feel sorry for those that think they need to rely on delusion to provide the basis for their moral fiber and community support. It simply isn't needed.