What kind of atheist are you

[King Alexander]

Hmm I suppose I should have been more explicit in that regard... I'm generally referring to God in the sense of a creator, not a specific religion's god. For example, I would consider a deist's God to fall under the definition of God for the purposes of this thread.

Still, first option; I don't even consider the other ones.

Let's see, we have a creator that created everything some billions years ago, and then went out and hung himself(?) or he's just to shy to leave traces of him or too bored to do any other thing in all those billions of years? Let's be serious. People do not live on trees or cages, anymore, and we should act accordingly.

However, it seems to me that unless you could physically or logically prove that God could not possibly exist under any circumstances imaginable, wouldn't it take something of a leap of faith (well maybe more like a tiny hop of faith in this case) to say that God definitely does not exist?

Faith hasn't anything to do with Gods' no existance: logic has. If people don't use their logic to judge the holy writings, we can as well abandon our civilisation and go and live together with the animals, once again.

 

[Fifty]

Faith hasn't anything to do with Gods' no existance: logic has. If people don't use their logic to judge the holy writings, we can as well abandon our civilisation and go and live together with the animals, once again.

Did I ever say anything about God as portrayed in religion, no. Like I've said, if you assert that God definitely does not and cannot possibly under any circumstances exist, then you have to come up with physical or logical proof of that assertion (like Mise has been talking about) otherwise you are basing it in part on faith.

 

[Mise]

What rules have I changed?

Anyway, I was invoking a hypothetical. Wether the premise is actually true is besides the point.

Are you refering to the "missing" information about systems that Bell's theorem says doesn't exist?

If so, that's a quite different sort of undetectability. If a deistic god isn't detectable, it's not because the relevant information doesn't exist, but because he's not left any traces visible to us inside his creation. He'd be unknowable to you in a matter similar to your relativistic Elsewhere.

Oh, ok, well it seems I misunderstood the Deist's god - it looks as though the problem with detecting it is practical rather than it being fundamentally forbidden by the laws of nature. I guess it does take us back to the "no evidence" position. (edit - not that it's a bad position to be in)

 

[Dominus Romae]

Good religion is essentialy a verbal contradiction. The religious laws that restrict someone are nothing to be obeyed, because the evidence of God is unexistant. It is a mere myth. We, the humans, are the rational beings of this planet, and we are only subject to the random forces of nature. Nature, as everything, can be explained through reason: if you cut the trees of some forest, there will be global warming. God is an invention of the human mind, but besides nature, they do not depend on any being.

 

[Blasphemous]

@dominus romae
Not completely true... Religion certainly has, at times, had positive effects on the world. However, I do agree it is now altogether unnecessary to humanity. This does not mean there are no people who individually need it. It is not a better person, or a worse one, who needs religion today. It is a different kind of person. Every person should have whatever opinion makes sense to them.

 

[Kayak]

I had to vote #2 with the proviso that if one came along I dont' think I should care.

@Blasphemous: It MAY not be a better or worse person. It depends on what ethos of the religion he or she latches on to.

 

[PriestOfDiscord]

Voted second. I've never treated my atheism as a replacement for religion. It's simply a lack of.

 

[Blasphemous]

@Blasphemous: It MAY not be a better or worse person. It depends on what ethos of the religion he or she latches on to.

The point is that the difference between those who do not need religion as individuals and those who do is not a difference between two groups where one is better. It's just a difference, somewhat like eye color - the difference is not in itself an indicator of anything about the person, but it is a difference nonetheless.

 

[Kayak]

The point is that the difference between those who do not need religion as individuals and those who do is not a difference between two groups where one is better. It's just a difference, somewhat like eye color - the difference is not in itself an indicator of anything about the person, but it is a difference nonetheless.

Agreed. It's all in your justifications isn't it?

 

[brennan]

I note that option 1 is a trap for the unwary, containing as it does the word 'believe'.

I see no reason why I should accept the hypothesis that God (however you define Him) exists. I see no evidence. Reasoning that the universe needs a creator beggars the question 'who created the creator?'. If something has to have the property 'must logically exist', then why not let it be the universe? As I have pointed out before 'creation' is indeed a property of the universe (see the Casimir effect for actual experimantal evidence). There is no need to postulate the existence of an entity that is apart from the universe, especially when there is no objective reason to do so.

The idea of a creator never came from divine intervention, it was all superstition, at no point was there any reason to believe. So I will not believe, for the exact same reason that I do not believe there is an invisible dancing elephant on the desk next to me.

In the absence of evidence the onus is not on unbelievers to prove that there is no God, but for believers to give us evidence that there is one.

 

[Fifty]

Good religion is essentialy a verbal contradiction. The religious laws that restrict someone are nothing to be obeyed, because the evidence of God is unexistant. It is a mere myth. We, the humans, are the rational beings of this planet, and we are only subject to the random forces of nature. Nature, as everything, can be explained through reason: if you cut the trees of some forest, there will be global warming. God is an invention of the human mind, but besides nature, they do not depend on any being.

Am I the only person who is getting a little bored with the fact that religion threads always contain about 50 million posts like this?

It seems to me that a lot of these type of things are just atheists tooting their own horns. I realize it might be fun or whatever to call religion "a mere myth" or "fairy tales" or "a psychological disorder" or "unsubstantiated poppycock" or "a load of crap" or "for dummys" or "human's attempt to cope with the world" or "mankinds search to explain meaning in their lives" or "the average joe's wishing to be able to explain everything" or "irrational gobbledygoop" or any other number of the 500,000,000 stupid, redundant, completely uninsightful slogans that people love to use when talking about religion. What the hell is the point of saying "I'm an atheist!!! Religion is a mere myth!" when its already pretty freaking obvious by the fact that you are an atheist that you are going to think religion is a myth.

Yet, it seems like this is all some posters have to say in religion threads. How boring. It is one thing to refute some religious dude who posts a bunch of irrational garbage, but to constantly sputter these slogans is to make practically every thread on OT feel like every thread before it.

If you guys are so intent on letting everyone know that you "shall not be tamed by the mythological fairy-tale irrational false human construct of religion" just put it in your signatures so that you can save yourself the typing required behind writing it out in every post of every thread that has to do with religion!

 

[Fifty]

I note that option 1 is a trap for the unwary, containing as it does the word 'believe'.

Well it is my contention that if you think that there is definitely, absolutely no God, and provided that you have no logical or physical disprove of the possiblity of God, then your saying that there is absolutely no God requires a measure of faith. If you do happen to have logical or physical disprove of the possibility of God, I urge you to share it with us, and you can just take "believe" to mean "think" or "have reasoned" in the context of the first option.

 

[farting bob]

There is no god. I dont believe that. I know that. Great things such as science and common sense brought me to this opinion.

 

[FredLC]

Am I the only person who is getting a little bored with the fact that religion threads always contain about 50 million posts like this?

A large majority of the posts in religiouis threads are boring. Even those which aren't self serving. Do it like me and concentrate in the good, useful (or at least interesting) stuff that always pop up in between the posts of those which just want to preach their certainties.

It seems to me that a lot of these type of things are just atheists tooting their own horns. I realize it might be fun or whatever to call religion "a mere myth" or "fairy tales" or "a psychological disorder" or "unsubstantiated poppycock" or "a load of crap" or "for dummys" or "human's attempt to cope with the world" or "mankinds search to explain meaning in their lives" or "the average joe's wishing to be able to explain everything" or "irrational gobbledygoop" or any other number of the 500,000,000 stupid, redundant, completely uninsightful slogans that people love to use when talking about religion. What the hell is the point of saying "I'm an atheist!!! Religion is a mere myth!" when its already pretty freaking obvious by the fact that you are an atheist that you are going to think religion is a myth.

Your criticism has merit, but just so I can get it clear: are you also bored with the thousands of times when it's argued by the defendents of religion that people who don't believe in God have "weak morals", that they are just "ignorant of the religion", that they "just want to be able to do evil things and not answer to a higher power", that they have "unfulfilling and unhappy life", that they "want to attack religion because misery loves company", and the tons of also annoying, arrogant and self-serving repeated rethoric from the other side?

To make it short, my question is: do you consider it annoying just when atheists act as egocentric bullies, or is it when anyone does that?

Yet, it seems like this is all some posters have to say in religion threads. How boring. It is one thing to refute some religious dude who posts a bunch of irrational garbage, but to constantly sputter these slogans is to make practically every thread on OT feel like every thread before it.

If you guys are so intent on letting everyone know that you "shall not be tamed by the mythological fairy-tale irrational false human construct of religion" just put it in your signatures so that you can save yourself the typing required behind writing it out in every post of every thread that has to do with religion!

Now, acting as poster, not as moderator (so this is not a warning, ok?), I will council you tha it is not good politics to try dictating to people what they can or what they can't post. Refute the wrong, ignore the preposterous, report the offensive. Seens like a very civic manner to behave in the forum.

Is this B-day thing here on purpose, or is it a mistake of some sort?!?

Regards .

 

[WickedSmurf]

My vote obviously went for the I believe that there is definitely no god option.

No, I do not belive in any form of deity. Nor do I believe in Santa Claus (although I sold my sold to him, got tricked by infomercials), the tooth faeri, the easter bunny et cetera....

IMO only nutcases and retards belive that there actually is some form of deity. Please....

 

[Fifty]

A large majority of the posts in religiouis threads are boring. Even those which aren't self serving. Do it like me and concentrate in the good, useful (or at least interesting) stuff that always pop up in between the posts of those which just want to preach their certainties.

I try, but I just felt like ranting for whatever reason I suppose.

Your criticism has merit, but just so I can get it clear: are you also bored with the thousands of times when it's argued by the defendents of religion that people who don't believe in God have "weak morals", that they are just "ignorant of the religion", that they "just want to be able to do evil things and not answer to a higher power", that they have "unfulfilling and unhappy life", that they "want to attack religion because misery loves company", and the tons of also annoying, arrogant and self-serving repeated rethoric from the other side?

To make it short, my question is: do you consider it annoying just when atheists act as egocentric bullies, or is it when anyone does that?

Anyone, surely. I agree with everything you're saying there. The reason I singled out atheists is twofold. First, the majority of posters (or at least the most vocal in threads on religion) are atheists. Second and perhaps more important, when a religious person makes the sort of wild assertions you cite, they tend to be given a swift refutation from any number of the regulars around here who watch out for that sort of garbage and do a good job of revealing it for what it is. However, when some atheists contribute nothing to a thread except the same old tired slogans abotu how god is a myth, a fairy tale, a psychological disorder, etc., they are rarely faulted.

Now, acting as poster, not as moderator (so this is not a warning, ok?), I will council you tha it is not good politics to try dictating to people what they can or what they can't post. Refute the wrong, ignore the preposterous, report the offensive. Seens like a very civic manner to behave in the forum.

I pretty much agree that I shouldn't be telling people what to post and what not to post, but I don't think it is necessarily wrong to point out how redundant and meaningless the things they say are, especially because I was in something of a ranting mood when I wrote that.

Is this B-day thing here on purpose, or is it a mistake of some sort?!?

Regards .

Mistake, I was looking at the smilies and I think I must have clicked it on accident and overlooked it. Oh well, just consider it a late/early happy birthday wish to whoever happens to be reading that post at that time.

 

[CurtSibling]

Good religion is essentialy a verbal contradiction. The religious laws that restrict someone are nothing to be obeyed, because the evidence of God is unexistant. It is a mere myth. We, the humans, are the rational beings of this planet, and we are only subject to the random forces of nature. Nature, as everything, can be explained through reason: if you cut the trees of some forest, there will be global warming. God is an invention of the human mind, but besides nature, they do not depend on any being.

Voted second. I've never treated my atheism as a replacement for religion. It's simply a lack of.

These two posts sum up the thread for me.

Nothing more has to be said.

.

 

[Fifty]

These two posts sum up the thread for me.

Nothing more has to be said.

.

Okay, but didn't you say earlier in the thread that you think their is definitely no God? Yet you quote the guy who voted option two? I realize that atheism is a lack of religion, not a religion unto itself. However, my point throughout this thread has been that if you positively assert that there is DEFINITELY no God, without any room for doubt whatsoever, you would either have to provide a logical or physical disproof of the possibiilty of God, or else admit that there is a tiny bit of faith involved in saying that there is defintely no God. Personally, I avoid that whole mess altogether by going with the Option 2 crowd that believes there is no evidence whatsoever for god's existence, so I will never believe until some evidence is found (which I highly doubt will ever happen, however I cannot rule out the possibility, small though it seems)

 

[CurtSibling]

Okay, but didn't you say earlier in the thread that you think their is definitely no God? Yet you quote the guy who voted option two? I realize that atheism is a lack of religion, not a religion unto itself. However, my point throughout this thread has been that if you positively assert that there is DEFINITELY no God, without any room for doubt whatsoever, you would either have to provide a logical or physical disproof of the possibiilty of God, or else admit that there is a tiny bit of faith involved in saying that there is defintely no God. Personally, I avoid that whole mess altogether by going with the Option 2 crowd that believes there is no evidence whatsoever for god's existence, so I will never believe until some evidence is found (which I highly doubt will ever happen, however I cannot rule out the possibility, small though it seems)

This is great.

So what has it got to do with me?

I just quoted two people who made two different but interesting opinions.

Just because I have a certain mindset, does not mean I cannot laud people
who make logical statements, even if they are not from my sphere of thinking.

Is that too difficult a concept for you to digest???

.

 

[Kosez]

I don't believe in god (deliberately written with small letters), but I'm affraid of religion.

Or as Bill Maher puts it, religious people are just stupid. (he didn't actually put his sentence like that, but hey, its internet, its the age of freedom of speach, an so on and so on).

Bottom line is, I know god of any kind does not exist. Why? Many reasons. Existence of god is too complicated according to Occham's razor (don't have time to explane it, maybe sometimes). Belief in existance of god is not based on likelihood of scientific proof of that belief. Bing bang theories on the other hand are. And so on and on.