Your view on Atheists

[SilentScope001]

Atheism isn't a belief. By definition, it is a lack of belief. And the burden of proof is on the one with the belief.

 

Well if you ask for proof...

 

Prove to me therefore that the burden of proof is on me. If you come up with a reason why I must have such a burden of proof, well, let me question it over and over and over. I want to evaulate that proof, and make sure it's valid, valid, and valid. Any flaw, and I'll tear it to pieces.

 

The bruden of proof is on you to prove to me that the burden of proof is on me. If you cannot supply such a proof...

[Samuel Dravis]

It's a waste of time to believe in something with no detectable benefits. If he's content right now, then you have to show him it's in his interests to be informed - after all, you're the one concerned about his belief/nonbelief. To be worth bothering about, there must be benefits, so: "You've got the burden of proof" = "Show me what the additional benefit of believing this is, because what I've got right now seems to work pretty swell already."

[SilentScope001]

It's a waste of time to believe in something with no detectable benefits. If he's content right now, then you have to show him it's in his interests to be informed - after all, you're the one concerned about his belief/nonbelief. To be worth bothering about, there must be benefits, so: "You've got the burden of proof" = "Show me what the additional benefit of believing this is, because what I've got right now seems to work pretty swell already."

 

True, I concur, but that wasn't the main point of my previous post. It was actually concering "proof".

 

If you ask me to supply proof, well, can't I just ask you to supply proof as well, causing an endless cycle? I'm pointing out that proof is not as important as people claim it to be. A person say: You got no proof, but then I can reply back: I got proof, but you have no proof that I have no proof. Treating the "burden of proof" as an objection to religion to prove it wrong, I can ask the atheist to prove that he needs to provide a burden of proof.

 

It's all about the irrational feelings and emotions a person have that decides if one have a belief/non-belief. Not about proof.

 

Strange...I think you gave me a good reason to believe in religion:

"Show me what the additional benefit of believing this is, because what I've got right now seems to work pretty swell already."

[Nancy Allen``]

Hm, what evidence is there of there being a cure for cancer, or that it's somehow to be found by blasting rockets into space? It's the same thing, I'm sure there's scientific reasoning for such exercises but billions are spent on something that requires a good deal of faith and we know little about as well.

[Achilles]

Hm, what evidence is there of there being a cure for cancer, or that it's somehow to be found by blasting rockets into space? It's the same thing, I'm sure there's scientific reasoning for such exercises but billions are spent on something that requires a good deal of faith and we know little about as well.

I don't think it's a matter of faith. I think it's a matter of "hey, what happens when we try this experiment in zero-g's and outside of Earth's atmosphere?". It's not blind faith that going there will yield a cure, but rather another series of hypothesis to run through the wringer.

 

If it helps to provide context, think of silly putty. It started out as a scientific experiment to find a super-plastic for military applications. They happened upon that formula while trying for something else and accidentally invented a pretty cool toy for kids. The horrific scientific experiments conducted on Jews during the Holocaust resulted in some beneficial advances for modern medicine (I'm not advocating that the Holocaust was a good thing). Penicillin was accidentally discovered when someone failed to follow the procedure of an experiment. Some of the most important discoveries in science came about as the result of accidents and "what if" experiments.

 

Experience tells us that trying new things will sometimes yield beneficial results. Therefore, science in space is completely in alignment with scientific doctrine, not faith as you propose.

[Pavlos]

Atheism isn't a belief. By definition, it is a lack of belief. And the burden of proof is on the one with the belief.

 

I believe there to be no God. That doesn't necessarily make me right so I can't tell others they are wrong. That's what I was driving at, I just happen to have a round-about way of getting there.

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

Edit: Nor am I suggesting that Christian (or any other faith's) doctrine therefore must be correct.

[SilentScope001]

Experience tells us that trying new things will sometimes yield beneficial results. Therefore, science in space is completely in alignment with scientific doctrine, not faith as you propose.

 

But you have faith in scientific doctrine. And you have faith that observations and experiments are accurate. You have fait that you are interperting your experience correctly and that the results are benefical.

 

What if people don't have such faith?

[Samuel Dravis]

True, I concur, but that wasn't the main point of my previous post. It was actually concering "proof".

 

If you ask me to supply proof, well, can't I just ask you to supply proof as well, causing an endless cycle? I'm pointing out that proof is not as important as people claim it to be. A person say: You got no proof, but then I can reply back: I got proof, but you have no proof that I have no proof. Treating the "burden of proof" as an objection to religion to prove it wrong, I can ask the atheist to prove that he needs to provide a burden of proof.

I'm sorry if I'm not getting it, but unless I can see that there's a benefit on my end, then there's very little reason for me to believe it. If you can't provide a reason then you're unlikely to make me change my view. I can give you a reason: you don't have to worship/pray/etc much if you're atheist. Saves a lot of time, and time is pretty valuable.

 

Strange...I think you gave me a good reason to believe in religion:

I suspect that will only be true until you determine the benefit, or lack thereof, of those religious beliefs.

[SilentScope001]

I'm sorry if I'm not getting it, but unless I can see that there's a benefit on my end, then there's very little reason for me to believe it. If you can't provide a reason then you're unlikely to make me change my view. I can give you a reason: you don't have to worship/pray/etc much if you're atheist. Saves a lot of time, and time is pretty valuable.

 

Er...maybe I'm not communicating my Idea correctly.

 

Okay, here's an attempt: A person says, "I believe there is no God." "I believe there is God." "The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is God."

 

It is this emphasis on proof that the Atheist wants to aruge with. In this example, you see the person says: "You got no proof, so it looks to me that you are irrational."

 

So, all I want to do is to go and counter his proof about "burden of God", by asking him "Well...I want to ask for proof".

 

Obivosuly, it sounds strange for the Atheist to offer proof for his belief that I must give proof that God exist. But he makes an assumption, that is, that I must prove that God exists. Assumption is, in some sense, a belief, and we should question everything, right?

 

I am not refuting what you say, all I'm trying to refute is the guy saying, "Give me proof". Well, of course, I can't give you proof, it's my belief. BUT, give me proof that I should give you proof. I shouldn't accept anything without proof, no? So, why should I give proof of God unless you prove to me that I should give you proof of God? Proof becomes meanginless when we ask each other for 'proof'. You can't prove ideas.

 

...Or you know, maybe I should just give up trying to explain it.

 

I suspect that will only be true until you determine the benefit, or lack thereof, of those religious beliefs.

 

...Remember the placebo effect we talked about before? It is surely God/"placebo effect" that helps to let me pass tests and get good grades, and overall help me gain materialist success in this world, which means there is benieft right here. It also gives me an ethical framework, which I am okay with. It works for me, so why change?

[Samuel Dravis]

Er...maybe I'm not communicating my Idea correctly.

 

Okay, here's an attempt: A person says, "I believe there is no God." "I believe there is God." "The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is God."

 

It is this emphasis on proof that the Atheist wants to aruge with. In this example, you see the person says: "You got no proof, so it looks to me that you are irrational."

 

So, all I want to do is to go and counter his proof about "burden of God", by asking him "Well...I want to ask for proof".

I'd think that both are out on a limb. They're both presenting arguments for which there is no way to verify. I'd personally reject both of them as they're stated.

 

...Remember the placebo effect we talked about before? It is surely God/"placebo effect" that helps to let me pass tests and get good grades, and overall help me gain materialist success in this world, which means there is benieft right here. It also gives me an ethical framework, which I am okay with. It works for me, so why change?

I didn't think the placebo effect really works that well if you know you're doing it to yourself...

 

Why change? Think of your reasons for believing it, and think of the benefits that religion gives you. Are these benefits exclusive to religion? An example that you've brought up a lot is the fear of death. Does the explanation religion gives even make sense in the physical universe as we know it? I submit that there is no reason to suppose these benefits true, as I have never seen any reason to suppose anyone has ever gone to a heaven, hell, purgatory, or any other plane of existence. The most I've seen is that people die, and they don't get up again. That's it.

 

So what, exactly, is the benefit of believing in something for which there is no reason to believe? You say, believe because if you do then you'll get these benefits (placebo effect). Well, I can already feel good about myself. I can already do well on tests. I can already make ethical judgements. I can already succeed in what I want to do. So, to me, there's precious little benefit to religion, and the few benefits there are are not exclusive. If I can already get all these things without religion's requirements, then why would I believe it?

[SilentScope001]

Why change? Think of your reasons for believing it, and think of the benefits that religion gives you. Are these benefits exclusive to religion? An example that you've brought up a lot is the fear of death. Does the explanation religion gives even make sense in the physical universe as we know it? I submit that there is no reason to suppose these benefits true, as I have never seen any reason to suppose anyone has ever gone to a heaven, hell, purgatory, or any other plane of existence. The most I've seen is that people die, and they don't get up again. That's it.

 

It's more of the meaning of life that religion provides, that is, serve God. Yes, you don't need this sort of meaning, you can find it other ways. I just prefer this way better, because it seems that the other ways seem a bit vain. Supporting myself, supporting my country...I see no reason to actually do such a thing. Others can, but to me, I cannot embrace anything really.

 

It's about values in the end. You do not need religion, but I do.

 

If I can already get all these things without religion's requirements, then why would I believe it?

 

Ah, but each human is unique.

 

Just because you can handle life without religion does not mean I can handle life without religion.

[Ambrose]

Let's remember that this topic is on whether or not you treat atheists differently from everyone else. I think we already have several "prove it one way or the other" threads already, and if not, it's high time we created one

[SykoRevan]

Just to clarify, this thread isn't only about whether you treat Atheists differently, but mainly your opinions, past experiences, and thoughts on Atheism. Just thought I'd make that clear. Also, let's try to remain on topic, please. I see less about people's views on Atheists and I see more people going off-topic and debating whether it is right or not. So please try to stay on-topic.

[Nancy Allen``]

Past experiance ay? Well past experiance has given me my views on how some, not all I stress, some Atheists are, so to some extent that puts them in a negative light and especially when they go on about having no tolerance for religion I think 'oh here we go.'

 

To be fair those I've seen go on like this have shown it in discussion outside of religion as well and make me think they just enjoy hurting people, especially when they say it's their moral right and duty to be like that, but it does put a negative spin on what they, supposedly, support.

[Ambrose]

Past experiance ay? Well past experiance has given me my views on how some, not all I stress, some Atheists are, so to some extent that puts them in a negative light and especially when they go on about having no tolerance for religion I think 'oh here we go.'

 

To be fair those I've seen go on like this have shown it in discussion outside of religion as well and make me think they just enjoy hurting people, especially when they say it's their moral right and duty to be like that, but it does put a negative spin on what they, supposedly, support.

 

Indeed.

 

In my experiences, the people I've known who call themselves "atheists" do it just so they can argue with theists. It's annoying really. Almost (but not quite) as annoying as people who call themselves "Christians" just so they can try to convert people and act morally superior.

 

The difference is, I know plenty of awesome Christians who don't wear their religion like a badge. Most of them are my friends.

 

On the flip side, probably 75% of atheists I know take their belief and bring it up at every opportunity. Furthermore, this same 75% act as if the fact that they don't believe in a god somehow makes them on a higher plane on the rest of us, and seem to work on the assumption that their understanding of science exceeds mine.

 

That's not to say I don't know atheists who are great people. That's the other 25%. But from what I've seen, they're the small few. It may be an unfair generalization, but I'm sticking to it because that's the impression I've gotten.

 

Other observations... the vast majority of atheists I know are (to use labels) emo, nerds, or computer/mmorpg addicts. Not that all of them are (the ones I call my friends aren't), that's just an interesting factoid I've noticed. No offense to any emos, nerds, or computer/mmorpg addicts out there. Just seems to me that most religious people live an all-in-all healthier lifestyle. Again, that's not always the case.

[Nancy Allen``]

What I don't understand is why they can't just accept that people believe in religion. Just because I don't believe in, say, Greek mythology doesn't mean I go about telling people the idiocy of doing so, nor do I have a right to.

[Ambrose]

What I don't understand is why they can't just accept that people believe in religion. Just because I don't believe in, say, Greek mythology doesn't mean I go about telling people the idiocy of doing so, nor do I have a right to.

 

Many of the annoying ones (see my previous post at the bottom of the last page for definition of "annoying one") constantly state that they are crusading against religion because they feel that it's the root of all evil, war, and poverty.

 

In this way, they themselves make up some sort of pseudo-cult intent on somehow ideologically wiping religion off of the face of the earth.

[Achilles]

What I don't understand is why they can't just accept that people believe in religion. Just because I don't believe in, say, Greek mythology doesn't mean I go about telling people the idiocy of doing so, nor do I have a right to.

Nancy, at this point I'm probably going to have to respectfully disengage from our dialog. You and I have been corresponding, both here and in the Senate, for about a week. If my arguments have still not been clearly communicated to you, then I doubt that I have the ability to do so. I repeatedly asked you which parts of my arguments have been unclear but you have exercised your option not to respond. This makes an exchange of ideas (in good faith) next to impossible.

 

Many of the annoying ones (see my previous post at the bottom of the last page for definition of "annoying one") constantly state that they are crusading against religion because they feel that it's the root of all evil, war, and poverty.

 

In this way, they themselves make up some sort of pseudo-cult intent on somehow ideologically wiping religion off of the face of the earth.

I would submit that your prooffered cross-section of atheists is incomplete. You've already stated that your conclusions are likely to be an unfair generalization, and true to your word, you continue to wield your opinion as fact. This also hinders an exchange of ideas based on good faith.

 

I feel that I've posed a fairly rigorous case for how religion is damaging and I would be more than happy to continue that dialog if you would like. My preference though would be that we keep the attacks leveled at either the arguments or the evidence.

 

Thanks.

[Ambrose]

I would submit that your prooffered cross-section of atheists is incomplete. You've already stated that your conclusions are likely to be an unfair generalization, and true to your word, you continue to wield your opinion as fact. This also hinders an exchange of ideas based on good faith.

 

I feel that I've posed a fairly rigorous case for how religion is damaging and I would be more than happy to continue that dialog if you would like. My preference though would be that we keep the attacks leveled at either the arguments or the evidence.

 

It was my impression that this thread was all about feelings, experiences, and impressions about atheists. I'm stating mine. Most of those are opinions. Sorry if that's so offensive.

[Achilles]

I understand that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. In the spirit of being an "annoying atheist" I am challenging it

 

You, of course, have the right not to engage in that dialog. It would be a shame though to turn down the opportunity to have an exchange of ideas, IMO.

[Nancy Allen``]

I apologise if I hadn't understood or even replied to some of what you said, but there are parts, such as this belief that Bush is trying to bring the end of the world, that I cannot understand.

 

As for Atheists and people who follow religion pushing their ideas onto others, I'm tired so I'd better not write my feelings about them in case I let slip some verbal diarage that breaks forum rules, but my feelings towards them are about the same as the feelings I have towards vampire cultists.

[SithRevan]

I have tried to kinda aviod this thread but I think I do have something valid to say. I personally believe, very much so, in christianity and that there is a god and a heaven. Now I don't personally like the decision of somebody not believing in god for reasons that I would care not to discuss but I also think we all make our own paths in life. So if that is what you truely believe I will not stop you nor encourage you.

[PazaakPrincess]

All I can say as a self professed atheist is that I've never tried to tell anyone that what I believe is right over what someone else believes and I usually never argue the question of "proof" because it is pointless in my opinion. I know what I believe and I can tell you why, if you wish to know, but I won't try to change what you believe or tell you that it is wrong.

 

So hopefully I do not qualify as an "annoying atheist". My experience with many Christians has been the opposite but I refrain from complaining on this point as I am sure you can say that about anyone on either side of any debate whether they are religious or not.

[Pavlos]

All I can say as a self professed atheist is that I've never tried to tell anyone that what I believe is right over what someone else believes and I usually never argue the question of "proof" because it is pointless in my opinion. I know what I believe and I can tell you why, if you wish to know, but I won't try to change what you believe or tell you that it is wrong.

 

I pretty much share your outlook on things, there.

[Jae Onasi]

The atheist/theist debate has been split off and now has its own thread The Theism/Atheism Discussion.

 

Please discuss views on Atheists as people and their experiences as Atheists here, and discuss Atheism as a world-view in the new discussion thread. Thanks!