To my fellow atheist, do you think believers just wrong?

[edhopper]

In another thread I was taken to task for saying believers are just wrong about God.
It is my position that since I do not accept the existence of God due to the lack of any evidence and that the scientific knowledge we do have all points to there being no God, they are wrong in their belief.

In proper scientific terms. one doesn't say 100% certain, since new evidence can always be looked at. But like evolution or general relativity or plate tectonics, which are settled scientific debate, opposing theories, like creationism or expanding earth or completely discounted, with no need to purse them at all.

If I am correct, believers are wrong. Unless we want to postulate some Heisenbergian Universe where the existence of God depends on the viewer.

What I am interested in is how fellow atheist see this. And believers as well, if they truly believe in God, then aren't atheist, by definition, wrong.

A caveat, I am not talking about the rights of people to believe whatever they will, I accept that (but also the right to question any belief).
I am interested in how my view compares to others.

[enough]

1. I don't see anything controversial in the idea that an atheist thinks believers are wrong about god.

Many believers think atheists are wrong about god.

For that matter, many believers think other believers are wrong about god, if they happen to belong to another religion. A lot of people have been killed throughout history because people think other people are wrong about god.

This in fact is why we have to have freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, so we don't have to keep killing each other for being wrong about god.

[edhopper]

2. And a secular society

where peoples religious beliefs may impact their political agenda, but also where no religious doctrine should be codified into law.

The only thing I would like to kill are some antiquated ideas.

[murray hill farm]

3. Why does there need to be a "right" or "wrong"?

Why do you care? I guess you have a right to question any belief or lack of it, but why not question it quietly. Question instead your need to confront those who's beliefs are different from yours. Question instead your desire to debate something someone else believes and why it is your issue. By the way, when you debate such spiritual issues, you inadvertently reinforce your belief and theirs by allowing a verbal debate which reinforces the original belief of each person involved in the debate. Quietly question your own need to define beliefs as either right or wrong.

[edhopper]

8. Why don't you care

why any of the ideas or ideologies you hold could be wrong?

And if you do, why not debate with others who hold different views.

But my premiss is a given and not why I started this thread.

[murray hill farm]

13. I don't believe that my idiologies or lack of them are either right or wrong..

so no, I don't debate things that cannot be proven. What a waste of time. Also, since I don't need to be right on such issues...so...that will be that...and I am not going to waste another second on it. Maybe I will question myself on why I did take the time to respond to this post at all. Ha!

[edhopper]

14. Yes

given you attitude, I would question that. heh heh

[AtheistCrusader]

88. And will you care when religious fundamentalists manage to ban abortion

because they insist a multi-celled blastocyst that hasn't even implanted yet or differentiated into a single brain cell, is a person with rights and a 'soul'?

Because their FAITH is why they are on about that issue, and why they are trying to legislate abortion away.

[cbayer]

101. Never going to happen. They have been trying for a very long time.

[cleanhippie]

104. Have you been living under a rock? States all over have instituted de-facto abortion bans

by implementing unattainable standards for womens health clinics, forcing them to CLOSE.

Never going to happen? Wake up, it's happening now.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. They have made considerable progress in just the last year.

[cbayer]

119. There have been some inroads in some states, but I think it will be reversed over time.

And I don't think Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Then you are part of the problem.

Half the shit the Supreme Court gets up to is because both sides are trying to stack the deck in the court to either preserve or overturn that one single case.

A constitutional amendment is the only permanent solution. Roe V. Wade is a temporary hotfix only. Rely upon it at your peril. There are people working day and night to chip away at it.

[cbayer]

137. Lol~ I am part of the problem?

In what way?

I've not heard about a constitutional amendment. Could you provide me with some info on it.

I just googled and saw that some people are working on an amendment that would permanently outlaw abortion, but that really doesn't seem to be going that well.

But I don't see anything from the other direction. If people are working day and night on it, they must be working very, very quietly.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. Yes, part of the problem.

"And I don't think Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed."

That right there is the problem. Depending upon that decision AT ALL as a solution is a problem, as is the general apathy implied.

Working very quietly? Are you serious?

These laws were passed, and had to be overturned in court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/oklahoma-abortion-law_n_2240632.html
In the US House:
http://www.wkrn.com/story/22627947/tn-congressman-pushes-anti-abortion-bill-wins-in-us-house
Texas, surprise surprise
http://www.kake.com/news/national/headlines/Sweeping-Anti-Abortion-Bill-Wins-Provisional-Approval-In-Texas-214848721.html
Court opposition to a new 20 week ban in Idaho.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/26/us-idaho-abortion-idUSTRE78P46B20110926
Arizona law almost went into effect, had to be spiked by a lower court http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/01/13069701-aclu-wins-appeal-against-arizonas-most-extreme-and-dangerous-of-abortion-bans?lite
North Dakota, again, saved by the courts, just barely.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/20/choice-wins-again-north-dakota-law-barring-abortion-by-medication-struck-down-by-federal-judge/
Arkansas 'heartbeat' abortion limit.
http://www.inquisitr.com/532730/heartbeat-abortion-bill-bans-abortions/


NIGHT AND DAY.

Your complacency is appalling.

[cbayer]

147. Oh, back off. You have no idea what I do or don't do.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. I know you dismiss and minimize the current fight on for reproductive freedom

and either are not aware of the specifics, or deliberately giving it cover. Everything you said upthread is of course, right there for everyone to see.

[cbayer]

159. You make assumptions that are incorrect.

I believe that the majority of people in this country support a woman's right to choose. While I know that there have been some states who have attempted to erode those right, I do not believe they would stand up to a challenge when taken to a higher court.

But if it makes you feel better to paint me as some sort of ignoramus who leans right, go for it.

Deliberately giving it cover? That's right. I'm actually a troll. It's right there for everyone to see.

[edhopper]

162. It is very close to 50/50

with only a slight majority in favor of allowing abortion in some cases. In having it just between a woman and her doctor, the majority approve of restrictions.
And in some States, there is majority opposition.

So you trust this SCOTUS or this Congress to defend the right?

And you really don't think questioning others religious beliefs in this matter is pertinent?

[AtheistCrusader]

163. They were your words.

And it's most states. And some of the laws aren't being overturned in the courts.

I repeat, Roe vs. Wade is a temporary hotfix, not a solution, and has resulted in the left and right struggling to stack that court with friendly ideologues, which has terrible implications for other issues as well. The proper solution is a constitutional amendment fixing in place reproductive freedom.

Don't believe me, listen to the ACLU:


"Some cases headed for Supreme Court review could well lead to the total elimination of constitutional protection for the fundamental right to choose abortion and allow states, once again, to ban abortion and birth control. If this happens, Congress can pass a constitutional amendment or enact a federal law, which would preempt state laws, to protect reproductive choice. You can help preserve the right to choose by urging your Congressional representatives to support federal protection of this right for all women, without exception, through the Freedom of Choice Act and the Reproductive Health Equity Act, and by letting your state legislators know that you support reproductive choice. For more information, contact your local ACLU or the national ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

American Civil Liberties Union
132 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
[phone] "

[Lemonwurst]

71. Right vs. Wrong on the *effects* of believing is where I stop

I am indeed an atheist, but would agree with someone else's point that categorizing right vs. wrong on the existence of God isn't a helpful exercise.

Faith and religion are products of our human existence. In its purest form, faith is specific to each individual. But most individuals associate their faith with an established religion as a function of the society they're born in / raised in / living in. From there, the concept of "God" is introduced to successive generations as if humans decisively know all there is to know, and have for several centuries.

But whether God (as described in human terms) really exists is immaterial, to the extent that faith and religion on their own have defined and measurable consequences for earth's people. We're in control of that, not "God". So right vs. wrong might be determinable with specific outcomes from faith and religion (i.e. helping the poor, religious wars, etc.) but can't be used to distinguish those who allow for faith - with or without religion - from those who don't.

Those with faith will tell you God's existence doesn't have to be proven. Humans don't try to prove that "love" exists, but its effect on humanity is widely understood, and measurable. And that's enough for people to agree that love "exists". Similarly, the human effect of believing in God is understood and measurable. But unlike love, humans have historically been obsessed with materially proving God's existence, which I believe is borne from a persistent societal desire to elevate a specific religious agenda. We have no distinct "loves" among societies to argue about, so no effort is made to prove one Love Belief above another.

Honestly, I can't imagine we'd even recognize "God" if we had the means to prove his existence. Heck, we're so off-base about God, we can't even come up with an accurate pronoun to describe "him" within our language (and we're all well aware as to why "her" isn't used...).

[trotsky]

16. Yes, how dare we suggest others might be wrong.

Would it be right or wrong to make abortion illegal? Some people's religious beliefs are quite clear on the matter. How dare we tell them they're wrong?

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Simple; if their god existed, he could stop abortion him or herself.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. I care, because people like to legislate upon their religious beliefs.

Hence the 'under god' bullshit in the pledge, and 'in god we trust' on our money, when I do no such thing.

If religious people kept that crap to themselves, we would never need to discuss this topic at all. They make it an issue in the public arena, so, I must man the barricades. That's why.

[cbayer]

103. And yet here you are hanging out in the religion group.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. And?

I did read the SOP for this folder, you know.


"Statement of Purpose

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

Whether or not religion is a thing at all is expressly allowed conversation.

[cbayer]

118. I didn't say you didn't have the right to post here. You most certainly do.

I just always find it interesting when people say they don't want any religious "crap" around them, then hang out with believers by choice, lol.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. You know, believers spend time talking to non-belivers too.

We probably view each other more or less as potential converts.

Pretending religious people don't exist doesn't make problems go away. This folder is a middle ground where both sides can meet and discuss.

I have no idea why I need to spell this out.

[cbayer]

136. I think someone who is really hostile towards non-believers probably

would not choose to spend a lot of time hanging around them and talking to them.

I'm all for meeting and discussing. Not so much for converting and attacking.

You have to spell this all out because I am a freaking idiot

or is that not what you were implying.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. I don't understand why you asked the original question in the first place.

Unless the intent was to mock.

[cbayer]

146. What original question are you talking about?

[AtheistCrusader]

157. This.

"And yet here you are hanging out in the religion group.
'Freak'"

Not exactly in the form of a question, but still demands a response.

[cbayer]

160. You obviously love tussling when it comes to religion.

You chose a user name that just screams that.

So the irony is that you say that you wish religious people would just keep their beliefs to themselves, but you choose a name meant to challenge them, then hang out in the group called religion.

That's all.

I just think there is a large dose of irony here.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Keep their religion to themselves within the scope of the law.

I don't expect people to keep their personal whatevers hidden in their private lives. Keep it out of the legislature and the courts, and there's very little reason for me to be making noise about it.

[edhopper]

164. I don't think it is possible to seperate the two

there for I believe (the usage I am good with) that questioning their beliefs and theology is required.

If we don't question ask why they do what they do, we cannot really counter it.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. I tend to agree, that is the reality of it.

They are difficult to separate.

[edhopper]

166. It is a matter of venue

in normal real life interactions, I don't go about challenging people when they say something about what they believe (unless they are using it to confront me).

But when it comes to beliefs in general. I don't think we should live and let live. I think a robust debate about religious nonsense (which covers just about all religion ) is in order.

[LibAsHell]

128. Frankly, the "why not question it quietly" argument sounds a lot like...

"gays should just live their lives quietly."

The influence of religious faith, i.e. the mythology of the ancient Israelites, is pervasive in politics/government today. We've seen how damaging that is to society. A truly, modern society should not accept that. That's why we have to keep questioning it out loud and in the public square.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. I don't think that's a philosophically sound position

Believers cannot prove the existence of God. That's what makes them believers.

You, on the other hand, cannot prove the non-existence of God, which is a subset of the broader philosophical problem that attends attempts to prove a negative.

You can, and do, disagree with believers. You can think them foolish and deluded. You can certainly come to the conclusion that some, even most of them are indeed wrong about certain things, because we have good evidence to the contrary. And you can even come to the conclusion that some, even most, of them are wrong about the big things, since almost all of them hold that their creed and their creed only is correct.

But you can't say that they're wrong about the existence of God. All you can do, ironically, is believe that.

[edhopper]

7. Disagree with that

Non belief is not belief. Rationally concluding something does not exist because of the complete and utter lack of evidence is not belief.

Science no longer postulating the existence of the ether, and discounting the possibility of it is not belief. We have discarded a multitude of ideas about the universe, why not this concept as well.

Of course one must ask to the believers :what do you believe God is" before one can say they don't see any evidence for its existence.

[Promethean]

48. Incorrect

You are bypassing the burden of proof. In this case a claim is being made that a being with capability beyond our ability to comprehend created the universe as we know it. This being put on a big show a couple thousand years ago and then completely stopped interacting with us in a way that we can perceive. Atheists merely take the very reasonable standpoint of asking for evidence of such an extraordinary claim before accepting it.

[Proud Public Servant]

68. I get it, but not absence of evidence

is not evidence of absence.

For most of human history, we would have been unable to prove that the solar system was heliocentric, that gravity existed, or that we could be made sick by invisible living objects. A person advocating germ theory in 300 BC certainly would have been thought of as crazy -- but he wouldn't have been wrong.

[cleanhippie]

105. In this case, it is reasonable to say that it is.

When one takes all off the scientific knowledge we actually know and understand about the universe and the laws that govern it, that can be seen as evidence against any claim of the supernatural. Coupled with the complete and total lack of evidence to support the claims of the supernatural, only the willfully ignorant will not make the connection and come to the conclusion.

In the end, since nothing can be known with 100% certainty, it comes down to probability. And the probability that any religious/supernatural claim is true is so low that one can easily dismiss said claim in the absence of any evidence to support it.

[okasha]

107. You're assuming that the only two possibilities

are atheism and Christianity.

You're wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Do Protestants think Catholics are just wrong? Do they both think that about Muslims who

then argue among their Shia and Sunni selves about who's just wrong?
I'm just saying that if there was such a thing as 'believers' who were a unit, vs atheists as another unit your question might be valid. But 'believers' is a cop out term.

[edhopper]

9. It is a generality

but I assume the atheists here, to whom I addressed this thread, will know what I am referring to.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Protestants and Catholics used to kill each other over what edition of the bible got taught in schoo

ls.

So yes, they do think each other is wrong, though some sects of either group consider the differences larger or smaller, depending.

[longship]

6. Could this be a version of strict atheism vs agnosticism.

Where strict atheism is defined for the purposes of this argument as knowing that there are no gods. And agnosticism is defined, again for the same purpose, as being uncertain of the same.

I ask this because this obviously contrived argument comes up often enough that I hear it from time to time when I profess that I am an atheist. I have heard it from both believers and self professed agnostics, often with the claim that I cannot be an atheist because nobody can know that there aren't gods.

I find this argument a very naive one. So my response is similar to yours except I am likely to include something like an Okham's razor approach. In other words: No, I cannot prove there are no gods, but their likelihood is so vanishingly small that it is appropriate to act as if it is zero. Plus, all the explanations of gods in the various religions are so discordant and explicitly contradictory it is likely that they are all wrong. Then there's the issue that gods are a prime example of an unnecessarily multiplied entity, per William of Okham.

So, although I cannot prove that gods don't exist, it is appropriate to claim with high confidence that they don't exist.

I never tell people that they are wrong about their beliefs. I only frame this issue with respect to my own. Of course, when somebody tries to impose a belief on me I will defend my beliefs. But I do not otherwise do what can be considered proselytization.

I don't care what other people think as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to have my own beliefs.

I hope this helps.

R&K

[edhopper]

10. I don't disagree

and in everyday discourse I pretty much follow your example.

But I am here in a religion forum, and I don't see the need to mince words for the sake of non-offense.

I try to state my position, including what I think of where others' stand.

[Starboard Tack]

11. No, they are not "wrong" for their beliefs.

Belief, by definition, has nothing to do with right or wrong. When they declare something as fact, then they are either right or wrong. Those are the ones to be wary of, the Pat Robertsons, the Richard Dawkins the Ayatolla Khomenis of this world.

[edhopper]

12. Are you answering that

as an atheist? Just want to put the answer in context.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Yes

You addressed the OP to atheists. That's how I identify and that's why I responded.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I think there is a wording difference between you and the OP.

I would agree with you that they are not wrong for their beliefs. There would probably be some exceptions to that, but generally I would agree that if someone wants to believe in a god, go crazy (and I say that as an idiom and not a literal assessment of mental health).

But I would also agree with what I think the OP is saying that they are wrong in their beliefs. They believe there is a god. I don't think that is correct.

Hope that difference is clear.

[edhopper]

18. Thank you

couldn't have said it better.

[DrewFlorida]

21. I disagree with you assertion that they are not wrong in their beliefs.

The reason I say that is because they are not really believers in 99.9% of cases.
A person who genuinely believes something by necessity has actions which are dictated by those beliefs, which is why the saying "actions speak louder than words" is so profound. A person's actions are a true reflection of their beliefs and to the extent that they do not match-up with their stated beliefs we can see that their stated beliefs are not correct, but rather a misrepresentation.

With all that said, for the very few throughout history who's actions matched their stated belief, I cannot nor do I have any desire to say their belief is wrong, due to the fact that it is a belief, not a statement of fact.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I don't believe there is a god either, at least not for me.

Doesn't make me right. It's just what I (don't) believe. Belief is more about imagination than cold hard facts. Nothing wrong with that.

[DrewFlorida]

22. Many people declare something as their belief, but their actions don't match their beliefs.

I would go so far as saying, almost all people who say they believe in God, that Jesus was sent by God as our saviour...yada yada yada are simply full of shit. Not because the idea is proven to be wrong, but because their actions don't show fidelity to their beliefs.

In my world I call those people con-artists.

I know this to be fact because God called me yesterday and told me so.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Best to judge peole by their actions, rather than by the beliefs they declare.

I learned that from a world that speaks to me every day.

[trotsky]

15. Yep.

Just like I think Republicans are wrong.

Many Republicans truly believe tax cuts for the rich are the way to prosperity for all. They're wrong, and few of us on this site have any qualms about saying so!

But for whatever reason, when you dare voice an opinion that you think a religious believer is wrong, you are branded an evil fundamentalist atheist bigot. This special treatment that many insist religion should get is what helps strengthen and protect people like Fred Phelps, Joel Osteen, or Randall Terry.

Until and unless we realize this and allow criticism of religious beliefs, and allow reason and observation to overrule them, we and the progressive agenda will continue to struggle.

[QSkier]

19. Interesting questions to think about

I will have to do some more thinking, thanks to your very respectful question.

Does belief in the existence of something without a single shred of evidence offer any correct avenue as an approach to a mature mastery of life? I tend to doubt it.

I'm not ready to answer, having just begun to read in this thread and in the thread for atheists.

I do enjoy what I'm reading in both.

[DrewFlorida]

20. I think believers have a certain arrogance to think they know it all.

While I don't believe any of the complete story-lines told by organized religion, I also don't dismiss the fact that we exist and somewhere along the line matter and life had to begin. Given that, I find an amazing arrogance on the part of organized religion to pretend they have all of the answers, or even some of the answers. I am content not knowing everything, I am content and excited every time science figures out a little bit more information about the world around us.
I also think, combined with that arrogance is a whole lot of laziness, (we thought about that problem, figured it out, now on to other things) on the part of believers, and a desire for power on the part of the administration of religion.
Finally, I believe, most people who say they believe, don't really believe, rather they pretend to believe as a means of being a "good person", which socially elevates them above other "not so good people", allowing them to feel valuable even though they are dishonest, cheating, scumbags who's actions are not in line with their so-called beliefs.

That's my take in a nutshell, on organized religion and believers.

[cbayer]

23. Could not that same argument be applied to non-believers that think they know it all?

I also find it arrogant for someone to say they know that there is no god and that those that believe in god are wrong.

Is it not also lazy to take that position? It slams the door shut and stops any further inquiry. We thought about that problem, figured it out, now on to other things.

[edhopper]

24. Well certain things don't need to be looked at once the question is moot

which gods control which natural force. Should we still discuss if Zeus or Thor controls lightning?

How about where Noah's ark landed, should we still look into that?

Or why the Sun is angry when there is an eclipse?

What about the density of the universal ether?

There are questions that are answered, and absent of new information, they don't need to be addressed.

Others can spend their time figuring out the true nature of God. But since there is no evidence that any such entity exists, why pursue that avenue of inquiry, when actual cosmic questions are still out there. The nature of Dark Matter is much more interesting and pertinent.

Should we investigate the biology of dragons, mermaids and the Loch Ness Monster because some people think they are real?

[cbayer]

25. The whole question of whether there is a god or not is moot.

Funny that we were apparently both typing responses (mine to someone else) using the concept of something being moot at the same time. Synchronicity? You decide, lol.

[CBGLuthier]

26. nothing arrogant about that reply

OMFG.

BTW ether had nothing to do with religion. It was just bad science.

[edhopper]

41. Things we no longer need to question.

Doesn't have to be just religion.

A wide variety of things can be left at history's door step and not fretted about anymore.

Hopefully God will be included someday.

[DrewFlorida]

34. Yes, what you propose is true, but that wasn't the question posed by this thread.

It's also possible to believe we don't know what is or isn't, and we don't have to be arrogant enough to think we have the knowledge when we don't.

[cbayer]

52. But it is very much the question posted by this thread.

When a non-believer takes the position that believers are wrong, they take the position that they are right and hold the truth.

Since they don't, I find it just as arrogant as a believer who takes a similar position.

Saying you don't know is one thing. Saying others are wrong is a whole different ballgame.

[edhopper]

57. I for one am not saying I don't know

that is your position, and there is nothing wrong with that view.

But I am, with a high probability of certainty, saying there is no God, ther for people who think there is, are wrong.

[cbayer]

59. A high probability of certainty? Really?

Can you give me some reproducible data on that?

And please don't hide behind the "I can't prove a negative" claim. If you can't prove a negative then you have no business saying that you are right and others are wrong.

Why is it so important for you to be right about this? Are your disbeliefs a bit shaky?

[edhopper]

67. After several

millennium there is not a single scintilla of evidence for a God.
The absence of evidence, at times, is evidence of absence.

There is no more reason to accept a God than to accept dragons, faeries or the gods of old.

God is postulate, and no one who promotes the theory of God can produce a gram of data in support.

Time to abandon the theory and move on.

[cbayer]

69. No one is asking that you accept a god.

The "theory" is not going to be abandoned except by individuals. Feel free to move on, I would just ask that you understand that there are those that do not share your perspective.

What you say is true for you, that doesn't mean it is true.

[edhopper]

86. the universe I know has an objective truth

Though we obviously don't know a lot about it, the universe is not made of subjective truths.
If god exits, then he exists, if he doesn't, he doesn't. This is true no mater what someone believes.

To bring up an older point I once made, objects always fell at ther same speed, no matter what the World thought

[cbayer]

99. The critical words here are "I know"

If your computer screen were to represent the entire universe and I asked you to draw a circle around the part that you knew, how big would that circle be?

Ok, let's make it more reasonable. If your screen represents all that is going on on DU right now, how big would your circle be?

Don't know a lot about the universe? We don't know squat about the universe.

Do objects always fall at the same speed everywhere?

[edhopper]

122. God of the gaps is

A poor argument, really no argument at all.
And yes, when affected by a body with mass, all objects get same gravitation pull. Everywhere we look in the universe, this is true. And saying 'what if somewhere it's not', is just nonsensical conjecture, not science.

But to your credit, you are saying I don't know, rather than some who use this argument to promote the idea of God.

[cbayer]

135. I agree that god of the gaps is a flimsy argument.

Since I don't argue for a god, I wouldn't have cause to use it.

But to close all the doors and say, there is not god and I am sure of that, is also flimsy.

If you yourself are done looking, that's fine. Move along.

But it's the judgement of those who are not that is off putting.

Again, I don't know and neither do you. You have no interest in continuing to look, but others do.

[edhopper]

140. and bigfoot hunters can still look for bigfoot

And the can still search for the loch ness monster. And ghost hunters can still hunt ghosts.
But it's all a quest for something that doesn't exist.
You can say there is a 50/50 chance for god all you want, but there just isn't a bit of evidence to support it.

[cbayer]

145. So what? Let them look if it rings their bell.

What difference should it make to you?

Why do you want to get all up in somebody' else's business and tell them what's true and what's not (according to you). when it effects you not at all?

[edhopper]

151. Because people who have false beliefs

especially if it is religious in nature, in more cases than not, lead to bad consequences for everyone.

I have never met anyone with a false belief that did not result in an action. (yes I think they are false, we have gone over that already)

Just look at the religious based laws being passed all over right now.

Or do things like abortion and teaching science or Gay rights not interest you either.

So tell me how do you debate against these things without countering the religious basis for there passage?


Why do I care? Why don't you?

[cbayer]

155. OMG, talk about believing in myths, you are absolutely convinced that you are right here.

Please - continue to take the position that others have false beliefs. Continue on your evangelistic crusade to show them that they are wrong and to rid them of their demons.

Yes, you are right. I don't give a crap about abortion, science or gay rights. That's some twisted logic right there. If one supports religion, one must not care about those things. If one is anti-religion, then one is somehow superior and truly supports those things.

You are becoming increasingly insulting and I will bid you farewell. Good luck with your proselytizing.

[edhopper]

156. The point

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

which you obviously missed, is how do you care about those things, and not the beliefs of people who are acting negatively about them. Might statement that you obviously don't care was meant as sarcasm, not a literal.

How do you support gay marriage and not care about the 100% religious opposition, an opposition based wholly on their faith.

You say others beliefs don't matter to you, how do you argue against something without taking on the basis for that agenda.

And since you think my nonacceptance of God and my seeing everyone who believes as wrong is only a belief on my part, equal to anyone else's belief, you do seem to care about my belief.

[DrewFlorida]

64. Tell me Cybar, do you believe Jesus was God's only son.....

and was sent here through insemination into an unsuspecting wife of a common man, to be born and raised by sinners in order to be our saviour? Do you also believe that Jesus's words speak for God? And therefore, do you believe you should live according to the words of Jesus?

If you believe all that, then I'm sure you live your life with no worldly possessions, you walk around all day doing everything and anything you can to help the elderly, the sick, the needy and never wanting for any extras for yourself! I also know you do not condone war in any way form or shape, conversely, you will let your oppressor nail you to a cross, never attempting to escape because you have no fear of this world, you are filled with love from God and that is enough for you. I know you must do all this because if you don't do all this then then obviously you don't really believe, you just say you do.

There is no reconciling a stated belief that is in conflict with ones actions, the actions tell us all we need to know about the true belief of a person.

When a priest says he believes and then molests children, we know he does not believe. When a parishoner say he or she believes, yet accumulates wealth we know he or she does not believe. When a person thinks only about their own welfare and not about sharing what they have with the needy and hungry, we know that person does not believe.

You can twist it and rationalize it any which way you like, it doesn't change the relationship of beliefs and actions.

[cbayer]

70. Why does it matter what I do or don't believe?

And why do you get to define what someone who does holds those beliefs should or should not do?

Life is full of contradictions, be they religious or not.

All of us have certain beliefs that we betray by our actions at times. Sometimes the betrayal is egregious. Other times it represents a complicated decision.

And who is this "we" you speak of? Are you really in the position to cast the first stone?

[DrewFlorida]

72. This is not my definition.

Simply, if you believe, your actions betray that belief. If you don't believe, your actions also betray the lack of belief. But you don't get to pretend to believe while making excuses for your actions not fitting your beliefs.

Contradictions are just that, the difference between what you truly believe and what you say you believe.

[cbayer]

74. No, it is your definition.

Believing does not result in a dictate. That's your narrow definition.

Again, lots of people have lots of beliefs, both religious and not. While they may guide conduct, they do not necessarily dictate it.

I am sure if we looked closely we could find lots of ways that you betray things you believe in. Does that mean that you don't really believe in them?

It seems that you want to make the case that all believers are liars. Is that what you are getting at? What would be the point of making that case?

[DrewFlorida]

75. Yes, when my actions don't fit my stated beliefs, that means I don't believe my statement.

Most peoples stated beliefs regarding religion are not a true reflection of their beliefs, they are a social statement for ego and vanity, for social status and acceptance. They are also a way of judging themselves to be better than some other group of people, which is why they are exercising their religiousness in public rather through personal reflection.

One of the few exceptions would be Mother Teresa, who actually lived her beliefs.

Like I said, whether it is me or you or any other person on this planet, when stated beliefs and actions don't match, it is because the stated beliefs are false, or inaccurate, or a lie, or a con-game, or whatever you want to call it.

Conduct is the true reflection of the heart and souls belief.

[cbayer]

77. So, let me ask you this.

Do you believe that workers should be treated humanely?

I would hope so.

If so, could you tell me what kind of computer you are typing on right now?

Unless you built it yourself from scratch, you are behaving in a way that contradicts your beliefs.

So, does that mean you don't believe in treating workers humanely? Which is it - a lie, inaccurate, false or a con game?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

79. Well said.

I've been told on DU that "all moral systems have contradictions" --not true, and that getting up and reciting a religious creed, say, the Apostles' Creed, and not believing it, is perfectly fine.

So Christians are telling me that their word or oath is not worth a damn. I think they are indulging in intellectual dishonesty, just as they say you can believe just about anything and be a Christian.

I live in the world of facts and reality, and base my decisions on reality as I see it, not as I wish it were. I don't believe in causality in the case of prayer, for example "I prayed and my sick mother got well", ignoring the skill of the doctors and nurses that treated her.


One minor point: Mother Teresa was a fraud. Did not provide medical care, only a bed for sick people to suffer and die in. That is not a hospital.

She took money from the Duvalier family, dictators in Haiti, and Charles Keating. Stuffed millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts and jetted around the world with the rich and famous.

Article by Christopher Hitchens from 2003.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

I thought Martin Luther was a scumbag for many reasons. One of them was the Protestant doctrine that faith without works (sola fide) was just fine. Pray your life away and don't lift a finger to help anyone else and you'll go to heaven. And predestination (God knows beforehand who is going to heaven and who is going to hell) is one of the most silly doctrines around. Why bother to do anything good if God holds all the cards and you have no control over your destiny? That surely promotes passivity and blame for the circumstances of your life on "God's Will".

[LTX]

97. This is a caricature of Christianity.

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 06:24 PM - Edit history (2)

Admittedly, I am in a poor position to expound on Christian theology. And Jewish theology is notoriously elusive. But the concept of "perfection" in Jewish philosophical traditions (which are, after all, ontological precursors to Christian theology) is not easily translated into a modern notion of "perfect ethical manifestation" (akin to your idea of living "just as Christ&quot . The presupposition is that no man can be as God, and that perfection is therefore limited by the moral frailties endemic in man.

Hebraic perfection is, in the context of man, a verb form, in the vein of effort or striving, necessarily limited by the inherent imperfectability of a fleeting, difficult, and transient human existence. Man must live in the conditions presented, and in the conditions presented, capable "perfection" is roughly two-fold, (1) perfected humility and forgiveness coupled with (2) perfected openness to, and striving for, knowledge. As I see it, this second aspect, with its corollary of good faith argument with God, was rather swiftly suppressed in Christendom and replaced by an expectation of devotional obedience, albeit devotional obedience softened by a recognition that such obedience was itself a process. But the presupposition of inherent imperfectability, and effort or striving as goal unto itself, remained.

The measure of faith or belief is not, in this context, behavioral perfection or a behavioral mimicking of Christ, which is frankly not possible in the conditions presented by an imperfect human civilization, but the honesty of effort and unstinting introspection by which one perfects humility, forgiveness, and exertion toward knowledge (or alternatively, devotion).

None of this is to suggest that hypocritical Christians and Jews do not exist, or that, at even this lesser although still arduous measure of faith, Christians and Jews do not regularly and miserably fail. It is only to put in perspective the high caricature of your alleged expectation of "true" Christians.

[okasha]

108. No, you don't know that someone doesn't believe

when that person fails to live up to the professed standards of his or her beliefs. Christians, Jews and Muslims call such failure a sin and are directed by their faiths to make amends and not repeat their lapse. The assumption that one will fail from time to time is built into most faiths. So is the opportunity for remorse, reconciliation and recompense.

Is it your opinion that everyone who continues to smoke doesn't really believe that they're inhaling carcinogens?

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I have met precious few Atheists that positively declare there is no god.

That would be placing the burden of proof on themselves. I have seen people say they find it highly improbable. Burden is still on the people who believe there is an invisible, pink, fire breathing dragon in their garage.

[edhopper]

94. I do declare, with a high probability of certainty

that there is no God. As i said before, after several millennium, the postulate of a god has not been supported by any evidence. I haven't really seen any scenario that might offer some. And all we do know and that has been proven only points to a universe without a god or supernatural force. So after a while, it becomes pertinent to a abandon a theory that produces no positive results.
The answers from believers are either, it is impossible to prove God exists (an interesting statement about a being that created the Universe) or we just don't know and can never know, so why ask.

Now to parse what you are saying, if you would say physicist would not positively declare general relativity true, or biologist declare evolution a certainty, because in science it is all about probability, not definitives. Then I do agree with your post.

[cbayer]

102. Declare is it now? Don't we need some fanfare and other assorted regalia?

It's never a good idea to stop seeking for something because you haven't seen any evidence to either support it or prove it is not so. If scientists did that, we would not have moved very far.

OTOH, you can stop searching and that is perfectly cool. You can abandon the theory and it won't make one whit of difference in the entire world.

But what you can't do is tell people that they need to abandon it. It's just not within your purview.

For every believer, there is an answer, and not just the two you put out there.

[okasha]

110. Paul is also fond of that verb.

n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

114. That is precisely the problem with religion.

"It's never a good idea to stop seeking for something because you haven't seen any evidence to either support it or prove it is not so. If scientists did that, we would not have moved very far. "

As Neil was explaining, 'god did it' is the end of inquiry, and why he finds religious people useless in the lab.

[cbayer]

121. Agree. It's a bad answer, just as saying that one has failed to find evidence proves that something

does not exist.

Seekers will continue to seek, and that's a good thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Depends on why you were seeking it in the first place.

If I declare the existence of an invisible pink firebreathing dragon in my garage, I think it would be a horrible waste of your time to continue to seek proof of it, in the interest of being thorough.

[cbayer]

138. See, I don't give a shit if there is an invisible pink firebreathing dragon in your garage.

As long as it's not bothering me or anyone else and makes you happy, why would I care?

[edhopper]

141. so you actually accept the possibility

For such a dragon? I guess as long as we can't prove it doesn't exist, you think it might?

[cbayer]

148. Let me make this crystal clear - I don't care.

If it means something to you and does not harm anyone else, then I don't care.

I feel no need to control what you believe or don't believe.

Why do you?

[edhopper]

150. And you don't care to

inquire into what is real or not?
You just dismiss it. But why cut off inquiry, wouldn't the existence of fire breathing pink dragons/unicorns be of interest to you?
Especially if they live in a garage?
Or do you just think believers in such things are wrong and no it has no bearing on the real world?

[cbayer]

152. I don't care to inquire into whether god is real or not.

Because I don't believe that you or I or anyone else will ever be able to answer that question.

You are the one who has decided to cut off the inquiry about god and that's fine. Others have not, and that's fine too.

I don't understand why it is so important for you to be right about this. Why can't you just let other people believe? You are never going to prove them wrong, no matter how many times you insist they are.

[edhopper]

154. Because belief is not a vacuum

belief always has repercussions.

After all these thousands of years with nothing but a grand sum of zero evidence for God, what further inquiry do you suggest.

Because I don't see believers inquiring if their god exists, just trying to figure out what is at is it's core, a illogical concept.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Would it be bothering you if I tried to pass laws getting the invisible pink

fire breathing dragon recognized on US currency or in the pledge?

By the way, it's an invisible pink fire breathing unicorn now. It does that from time to time.

Sometimes it's a hippogriff too.

[cbayer]

149. Yes it would., just as it bothers me that god is mentioned on those things.

[edhopper]

153. So when people with beliefs you oppose

try to pass laws that are harmful it bothers you?

But you don't think you should argue against those beliefs?

[AtheistCrusader]

113. We agree.

The theory of evolution is well known, but there are details shaded in all the time, and it is regularly tested against the available evidence. Any scientist worth his or her weight in reaction mass to reach orbit should be willing to discard it if it failed those tests or a better theory supplanted it.

[cbayer]

100. I agree. I also have met very few.

That's because it's a completely untenable and ludicrous position to take.

Highly improbable I'm just fine with.

Definitive and absolute just reminds me of fundies.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. I accept that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that does not wish to be perceived

cannot, by definition, be perceived. So I will always allow the possibility. I find the probability low, given said being spent a lot of alleged time and effort directly intervening and exposing itself to humans in the distant past. But that doesn't rule out a capricious, shy omnipotent being.

[cbayer]

120. Sounds reasonable to me.

[edhopper]

123. i should amend my declaration

But first asking whoever is postulating the existence of God. Which God is that?
Any that invoke the supernatural can be discounted. But if you tell me there is a god that has never interacted with the physical universe and for which there can be no evidence. I couldn't really make a judgement, except to ask the person, how they know about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Excellent point.

Special pleading, whichever direction you go there.

[raccoon]

76. Great post. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I am an agnostic, because I see no evidence of a deity but not certainty that one does not exist.

I am willing to be surprised should that event happen.

[dballance]

28. Yep, they're wrong.

If they said gravity didn't exist I say they were wrong, If they said they still believe in Santa I'd say they were nuts.


So yep, if you believe in a supernatural power that a lives above then I think you're wrong.

[DontTreadOnMe]

29. Tax the Churches

God wants to pay his fair share.

[edhopper]

38. Not OT

but gets a chuckle from me.

[no_hypocrisy]

30. It doesn't matter whether I'm right or they're right.

What matters is that I respect what they believe and vice versa.

My brother is a converted Muslim. I gave him an Arabic-English dictionary so he could interpret the Qu'ran himself to be an individual scholar rather than a mindless disciple. His religion doesn't offend me.

[edhopper]

36. So you have no opinion

on the validity of any of your beliefs?

I am asking what you think, not how you behave. you can think someone completely wrong, yet because of other societal or familiar situations, find it better not to engage in your differences. In fact, here is no reason you should if you prefer not to.
But within yourself, you have no thought on if any of it is true?

[no_hypocrisy]

92. It's a classic dicotomy of whether something is "right" and true if I think it is and if it truly is

I use my own values to make my decisions. I include those values when I teach but I don't find the need to promulgate them as the exclusive standard. I'll defend my humanism/atheism/freethought principles where it's appropriate without being defensive.

My brother is a Sufi. My first cousin once removed is a born again Christian and minister. Do I want to join them on their religious paths? No. But I also don't find a need to engage in our differences unless it's going to be an intellectual discourse.

It's too black-and-white to format the issue of being religious and non-religious into "right-and-wrong". There are nuances and some small agreements. And then there are principles that are never going to blend.

I don't think of others as "wrong" to my "right". All I ask is that I'm not compelled to think as they do.

Die Gedanken Sind Frei (My Thoughts Are Free):

[edhopper]

93. I think I understand your view.

But I want to reiterate, I am not asking if people should tell other people if they are right and others are wrong, I am simply asking about your internal thinking about it. Nothing to do with how you engage others. In most of my real life interactions, I find there is little benefit from engaging others on this topic.

[no_hypocrisy]

95. I'll try to specifically address your premise.

Honestly, I don't think of the differences of our divergent thoughts. I take issue on actions based on those thoughts. Examples of religious (or pseudoreligious) individuals who want the right to pass out Bibles to gradeschool children on public school property, who want sectarian prayers before a vote whether to install sewers, who claim religious exemption from paying federal taxes although they promote public office candidates from their pulpit. It's what they do (or don't do) that I take issue, not whether Jesus rose from the dead three days after his assassination. Or whether God gave Israel to the Jews. Or whether each Muslim martyr gets 72 virgins upon death.

My specific belief system doesn't interfere with my personal life BTW. I'm involved with a Methodist and we have a running joke about life-after-death. If I'm right about death is the end-of-the-line, I lose the smugness of informing him that I was correct. OTOH, if he's right and there is life-after-death, he's going to run after me for eternity, intoning "I was right and you were wrong." Talk about Hell.

[edhopper]

96. Thanks

Just curious, do you consider yourself more of an atheist or agnostic?

[no_hypocrisy]

98. I'm a combination

Secular Humanist
Atheist
Freethinker
Ethical Culturalist

I found it limiting and parochial to stay in one category although these group will share some principles. I guess predominantly, I'm ethical culturalist which is essentially god-free although there is no compulsion or mandate to be so.

[immoderate]

31. I'm in line with the OP, and several other notables posted here.

And I'll first agree with those who say that people can believe whatever they want, and that is their right.

Accepting a god is simply not consistent with any widely held scientific theory. And it is not indicated by any philosophical notion of reality.

Let's be clear. I am saying the idea is wrong. I am not judging the people who hold the belief as morally wrong. Just silly.

--imm

[MrModerate]

32. I *believe* that people who believe in god(s) are flatly wrong . . .

There's no question in my mind.

However, since it's illogical to prove a negative, I cannot offer them proof. So I don't try.

And frankly, from a social policy standpoint, I'm more concerned about the negative effects of religion than the negative effects of faith. And I'm not particularly shy about engaging religionists on areas where religion has a deleterious effect on public policy.

[QSkier]

35. "more concerned about the negative effects of religion than the negative effects of faith"

Are they not part of the same whole?

Just wondering how one divides one from the other.

Are not all religions based upon the requirement of there being a "faith", despite a lack of evidence, enabling all religions to assume their power from nothing more than a "faith" despite a complete lack of evidence ?

[edhopper]

37. I think he means

if you have to chose a fight, it is more important to engage the religionist who want to impose their views on society, than challenge someones belief in a philosophical debate.

So many hours in a day and all.

[MrModerate]

45. Being a believer in the supernatural is a disordered state of mind . . .

But is generally benign in its own right. (How many parents believe in their heart of hearts that their children are exceptional or that their mangy dog is cute — to cite a few secular examples of "faith.&quot

But it takes a religion to turn that delusion into real damage.

[edhopper]

46. Oh, I think a lot of

belief in the supernatural can do real damage.

Astrology, psychics, mediums, etc..all can do great harm.

[DavidDvorkin]

33. Yes, they are wrong

And misguided and deluded.

[eomer]

39. Everyone who has any view at all about religion believes that someone else is wrong.

The only way to not believe that someone else is wrong about religion is to hold no views at all on religion, positive or negative. I would think that person is extremely rare.

[edhopper]

40. Well a true agnostic

might think someone has to be wrong, they just don't know who. And perhaps think that answer is unknowable.

[eomer]

42. If they "think that answer is unknowable"...

then they definitely think some people are wrong about religion because there are obviously people who think it is knowable.

[dimbear]

43. Edhopper asks us what we think, I for one think the believers are wrong.

Pretty close to the definition of being an atheist, IMHO. The wonderfullest thing about this forum is that that opinion is protected here.

Not many places in the world where it is. Not nearly enough.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. What do I think as an atheist?

Of course I think they are wrong, in the exact same way they think I am wrong.

That said, I have not seen the conversation you are talking about but If I might venture a guess I think that the reason you were "taken to task" was for asserting they were wrong as if it were a commonly known and accepted fact.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]It is my position that since I do not accept the existence of God due to the lack of any evidence and that the scientific knowledge we do have all points to there being no God, they are wrong in their belief.

What evidence do you have there is NO god? That is quite the statement. My understanding of science can disprove some gods, but I have never come across evidence that absolutely proves that there are NO gods at all.

The god of Thomas Paine, in particular, is hard to prove or disprove. If anything, I see evidence for pantheism in that all matter is just another form of energy. If energy is the true form of god then I could not argue against that.

Of course, I neither define god in such a manner; and, I see very little difference in saying that god is all and that there is no god.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If I am correct, believers are wrong. Unless we want to postulate some Heisenbergian Universe where the existence of God depends on the viewer.

I agree. As you said, if you are right then they are wrong. That is simply a statement of fact. And as you acknowledged the reverse also holds true.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I am interested in how my view compares to others.

Okay, my view is this. I do not think the claim that there is a god (theism) or the claim that there are no gods (explicit atheism) have been proven. I see no evidence for either view, and I don't think I can in any way assert that they are wrong in any objective manner because I simply don't know.

That said, I don't believe there is a god. I look at this world where we all die painfully, pointlessly, and in vain; where children are massacred and pedophiles are exalted and I can not accept that even an indifferent god would allow such misery and pain to exist. I feel nearly 100% certain of this. So subjectively I think they are wrong...but I also acknowledge I could very well be wrong myself.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Rationally concluding something does not exist because of the complete and utter lack of evidence is not belief.

I disagree with you here. Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true. Conversely, Knowledge is defined as justified true belief.

By definition, your position is indeed a belief. It very well could turn out to be a true belief. But it is still a belief. Whether or not your belief is justified, i think, is debatable. Without evidence proving that no gods exist I don't think you have justified your belief.

[edhopper]

47. Thanks for the reply

The debate on whether evidence is needed to disprove God, when there is no evidence to support the premiss is a matter of ongoing discussion here.

I fall into the camp that it is those who make the claim are the ones who need to provide evidence.

I do not need to disprove unicorns, leprechauns or the Loch Ness Monster. There simply isn't anything to support their existence.

But I do understand your POV in this.


I think your comments on belief have to do with how one defines belief, you used a psychological science definition, there are other common uses for the word. So it comes down to what one means when using the word. I don't think it it a nit worth picking for me.

[LostOne4Ever]

80. I did not mean to nit-pick

But I believe that definitions are important.

Without a common understanding of the meaning of words how can we effectively communicate? It for this reason I usually object to someone trying to use the term agnostic as some sort of middle ground between atheism or theism.

I also think its important to try and make sure you understand what others are trying to say. That said, what is the definition you are using?

[edhopper]

124. i think the use here is belief based on faith as in religion

And not belief in say, democracy or the New York Mets.

[cbayer]

61. +1 - excellent answer

[LostOne4Ever]

81. Thank you!

[cbayer]

82. I'm really enjoying your participation here.

While we disagree pretty deeply on some things, you add a level of civility and thoughtfulness that is a great benefit to this group, imo.

[LostOne4Ever]

84. Again thank you!

I think its important to TRY and see the good intentions in everyones' actions and words (though I really do have a hard time doing this with conservatives) and to try and be polite and respectful with everyone (though again I often fail at this when dealing with the far right).

I feel it leads to a better understanding and solutions that benefit everyone.

I also spend quite a bit of time writing my replies....I wish I spent as much time grammar and spellchecking them though

[okasha]

109. Though we've disagreed, sometimes sharply,

I would also like to say that your posts set a high and thoughtful standard, and are appreciated.

[LostOne4Ever]

111. Just because we disagree

Does not mean we can't be respectful to each other or just have fun debating right?

/olive branch



>.>

Be aware though,

I am a nerd.

<.<

[okasha]

112. I've probably been a nerd

longer than you've been alive, hon. Just personally, I think we nerds are highly underrated.

[WovenGems]

49. Well.....

I can see why Man needs God but am clueless as to why an immortal would need Man. Any reason I can come up with points to a psychological problem with the immortal.

[edhopper]

50. So your saying

those that believe in God are wrong?

[wercal]

51. Alot of Atheists evangelize about their own brand of faith more than believers

[edhopper]

54. Absurdly untrue

and condescending. The canard that atheist are nothing but people with a different faith has been thrown around here to often.
And it's always been a ridiculous charge.

And I must ask you apropos to this thread, do you think atheist are wrong about there being no God?

[wercal]

78. How the heck would I know

"do you think atheist are wrong about there being no God?"

Without getting pinned down to any particular religion, the question at hand is are we:

a) Just randomly here is a collection of rock and dust spinning around in the universe.

b) Here as part of a larger plan, as determined by a higher power.

I have absolutely no idea which one is true...and never could know.

I'm actually not a very religious guy - lapsed catholic, my church attendance is limited to weddings and funerals.

But I absolutely think that many atheists are just as zealous as evangelical Christians. And in their zeal to 'convince' others of how correct they are, they are perceived as trying to recruit, just as much as a Mormon on his or her mission.

Wouldn't it be 'ok' for an atheist to not believe in God....AND...not give a shit what his neighbor thinks?

Please re-read your OP...and re-evaluate who is being 'condescending'.

[edhopper]

85. thanks for the longer reply

I mistakenly took your reply as a believer. But you seem to sound more agnostic, and your reply reflects that.

But I still don't see teams of young atheists going door to door around the world to evangelize.
Or set up missions in a new city to recruit people.

[Drale]

53. I stand by Wheaton's Law

when it comes to religion. "Don't be a dick". Now that doesn't mean stand by and let people hurl religious based hate and bigotry around, hell not call them out on that but the belief in a high power itself its not bad or evil. The people who spew hate and bigotry and say its based on their religion would be terrible people with or without that religion.

[edhopper]

55. But do you think there is validity to their faith

I am not asking if people have to confront others, just how you view their religious beliefs.

[Drale]

56. It really doesn't matter what I think

as long as they are not trying to control others with their faith, its none of my business.

[edhopper]

58. Does it matter to you what you think.

This is a thread about personal views, nothing more.

It is not about acting on those views.

But if you don't want to respond to the question at hand, that is your right.

[Drale]

60. But I did answer the question

if they are not trying to control people with their faith then its none of anyone else's business and Don't be a dick by laughing at them and telling them they are wrong. So Don't Be A Dick

[edhopper]

66. The question is

do you think they are wrong? Atheists can lean toward the agnostic and say they aren't sure or feel they are certain there is no God. Where on the spectrum do you lie?

[Laochtine]

83. Yes

[rock]

106. Yes

[Humanist_Activist]

125. All believers ultimately worship themselves while proclaiming humility...

I find both hilarious in a disturbing kind a way, and, on another level just sad.

Whether its right or wrong depends on the preexisting person, and the god that is a reflection of that (idealized, usually)person.

[LibAsHell]

126. I think it's reasonable to say they are most likely wrong

Given that their beliefs are predicated on the mythology of ancient desert-dwellers.

If someone claims to have felt the presence of god, then I can simply say that I'm happy for them but that I haven't, and I cannot have faith a in god based on someone else's personal, spiritual experience.

[Warpy]

127. No, I think it's a lot more complicated than that

and has to do with a feeling of safety and a feeling of belonging to something larger than oneself. Some people also claim to have direct experience of an "other," probably related to the Third Man Factor and hard wired.

Atheists are just built differently and I'm perfectly OK with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor

[Deep13]

129. Nothing supernatural exists.

Ergo, no god exists. Asserting that God/gods exist is factually wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. If I am right, believers are wrong and vice versa.

The concept of supernatural is a linguistic construct which acts as a dumping ground and grab bag for everything that we either have not explained or have explained, but the explanation is not generally known by the public. This construct comes from the limited mammalian rationality that requires an answer for every question, is evolved to see purpose in everything, and which sees itself as the center of the universe.

The polite or N.O.M.A. perspective insists that the question of god is unknowable. If that were true, however, why do we even have a concept of god? Besides the circumstantial case against god is so compelling, that it has ruled out any kind of god whose existance would actually matter to anything.

[spin]

134. At this point our science may not have advanced far enough to prove beyond a doubt ...

that the universe was not designed by some form of intelligence.

At this time we really don't understand gravity, dark matter or a million other subjects. The more we learn the more questions we find to ask. At this time there is no evidence to prove conclusively that such an intelligence does or does not exist.

Perhaps someday we may encounter a alien species that are far more advanced than we are. If they chose to communicate with us, we might ask them if there is a God. They might tell us that they have yet to prove or disprove the existence of a "God."

Of course there is a slight possibility that our planet was visited long ago by highly advanced alien species. We would not have understood the encounter and stories of such meetings might have led to the mythology many religions have been based on.

[edhopper]

139. just God of the gaps again.

What we don't know, god is a lazy answer with no thought for actual explanation.

[edhopper]

167. I believe we should have single payer healthcare

or another system comparable to any of the industrial nations that have universal healthcare.

I believe that an unregulated banking system will only lead to chaos that seriously injures the bulk of the populace while enriching the few.

I believe that a woman has the right to choose.

I believe that we should follow science in what we teach in school and do as policy.

I think people who promote the opposite in both their beliefs and actions are wrong..

Should I not think they are wrong? I'll listen to what they have to say, but I think i should be able to say,"No your are wrong about that, and here is why: First of all, all the evidence contradicts what you are saying..."

[cbayer]

168. You have completely moved the goalposts here.

Your original statement which opened the debate is that there is no god and that people that believe there is are wrong.

You've taken a completely different tack here and are now saying that you feel some people's position on certain issues are wrong.

You can say people are wrong all day long when you have evidence that contradicts what the other person is saying.

The bottom line is this - when it comes to the existence of a god, you don't.

[edhopper]

169. We obviously differ there

When people say the open, non-regulated free market is the best way to treat finance; I say, but all the evidence points to that being wrong, and I see no evidence to support your premiss.

You want to place God in a separate category beyond debate. You are positive in your opinion that God is unknowable and the truth about God is always beyond us. What's more even questioning another's belief and saying they don't have anything to back it up is wrong.
Would you say the same about the things I list here?

I look at the facts and see a concept with no supporting evidence. God doesn't get special exemption from debate with me.

[cbayer]

170. I never said that the existence of god should be in a different category, but

I think it's a completely useless argument, as there will never be a winner of that debate.

You can ask a believer to provide evidence, but they won't be able to. Does that mean you win? I can ask you to provide evidence that they are all wrong. You won't be able to. Does that mean you lose?

The things you list here have reams of evidence that support different positions.

You go ahead and debate god. Make sure you start with the premise that is also your conclusion. I believe that's one of your beloved logical fallacies.

I think we've said all that can be said. You started a thread in order to put this question to a vote - are people that believe in a god wrong. You got some interesting answers. Some people agreed with you, some didn't.

That's kind of how the world works when you are pursuing your personal agenda and not presenting facts.

I will let you have the last word, if you wish, but I am really finished with this topic for now.

[edhopper]

171. That's fine

but to clarify, I wasn't looking for a vote per se. We had a discussion in another thread in which you thought I was in the minority of atheists who thought believers were wrong.
Now I may well be, but I was curious to see how that view aligned with others here. I truly did not know if mine was a more skewed view or not. And of course the sample here is too small to make any judgements about atheists in general.

I don't didn't know how the answers would affect my view, but I thought it would be good to hear them.

I think most of the debate I engaged in here was from post about something other than a basic answer to the question.

Not so much a vote, as a info gathering. At least that was my intent.

[MFM008]

172. militants

of all types, are a pain.

[edhopper]

173. hmmm

[img][/img]