hatred for being an atheist

[Heisenberg]

"The experts say critical thinking is fundamental to, if not essential for, 'a rational and democratic society.' What might the experts mean by this? Well, how wise would democracy be if people abandoned critical thinking? Imagine an electorate that cared not for the facts, that did not wish to consider the pros and cons of the issues, or if they did, had not the brain power to do so. Imagine your life and the lives of your friends and family placed in the hands of juries and judges who let their biases and stereotypes govern their decisions, who do not attend to the evidence, who are not interested in reasoned inquiry, who do not know how to draw an inference or evaluate one." - Peter A. Facione

 

[tyler.durden]

"The experts say critical thinking is fundamental to, if not essential for, 'a rational and democratic society.' What might the experts mean by this? Well, how wise would democracy be if people abandoned critical thinking? Imagine an electorate that cared not for the facts, that did not wish to consider the pros and cons of the issues, or if they did, had not the brain power to do so. Imagine your life and the lives of your friends and family placed in the hands of juries and judges who let their biases and stereotypes govern their decisions, who do not attend to the evidence, who are not interested in reasoned inquiry, who do not know how to draw an inference or evaluate one." - Peter A. Facione

In the world which he describes, I wouldn't be able to tolerate most people or their society's irrationalities, and I would spend most of my time in my house alone. Wait...

 

[Padawanbater2]

In the world which he describes, I wouldn't be able to tolerate most people or their society's irrationalities, and I would spend most of my time in my house alone. Wait...

Delicious!

 

[Indicakat]

SeniorFrostyBud, clear your private message inbox, it's full, I wanted to pm you but it will not let me your inbox is full, sorry to go off topic, this thread has proven to me that their are some very intelligent members with a lot of great insight, now I am more confused as ever about religion! I will stand by my dislike of organized religion through, it seems only to serve in its own self interest. Reading posts and seeing different posts by several members that I have high impressions of their different opinions and insights, just wants to make me delve further into learning. Like I have said in the past, I was brought up an atheist as my grandparents had raised me. Then my mom got custody of me at 14 under false pretensions she was sober, she was a major drug shopper, who had me at the age of 14 going with her faking migraines to get her drugs, yet kept her rosemary beads with her at all times, forced me into a Catholic School, where I was shunned and felt like an outcast because I had never even seen a bible in my life. I believe that had a huge impact on my life against my belief system. This is a wonderful thread, I have gained knowledge. As they say, keep what you want and throw out the rest. It has made me think a lot about religion and hope and faith. Please keep posting, all information has to have a source. And Zahaet Strife, just like I said, you put the quote about religion, you must have picked it up somewhere or you and the other dude have similar minds, by the way, I'm a chick, but you can call me dude, I have no idea why, all guys seem to call chicks dudes now, lol!

 

[Zaehet Strife]

No worries Kitty Kat, you are a pretty cool dudette yourself. Thank you for sharing your ideas with us, it means a lot.

 

[Indicakat]

I like that, you guys can call me kat or kitty kat, Zaehet Strife, you have made very interesting points, my husband laughed his ass off at the kitty kat, he loved it, by the way there are too many Indicas out there, so I like the uniqueness of not naming myself after a strain or type of marijuana. Pretty cool my dude!

 

[Zaehet Strife]

When my girlfriend saw that she punched me in the shoulder, she said i can only call HER Kitty Kat, "puuuurrrrr" lol!

 

[Indicakat]

That's funny, but being with an unfaithful husband Zaeth, I have to take your girlfriend's side, after all I have gone through, if my husband called another girl kitty kat, I would punch him too! You can just call me Kat! Lol, your girl seems like a stand up girl who I would like, tell her I'm on her side, but still think your pretty awesome with great ideas.

 

[Prawn Connery]

I was an athiest.

Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.

I simply accept that human beings are fallible. We do not - and never will - have the capacity to understand that which is beyond our grasp.

Anyone who worships a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

Anyone who does not worship a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

But there is one idea with which I am fairly comfortable: if there is a creator - or creators - they would be nothing like anything any religion has ever devised nor ever will.

Gods are created in the minds of men. If it were the other way around, we wouldn't be so fucking naive . . .

 

[Beefbisquit]

I was an athiest.

Until I realised athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.

I simply accept that human beings are fallible. We do not - and never will - have the capacity to understand that which is beyond our grasp.

Anyone who worships a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

Anyone who does not worship a god would not recognise it if they saw it.

But there is one idea with which I am fairly comfortable: if there is a creator - or creators - they would be nothing like anything any religion has ever devised nor ever will.

Gods are created in the minds of men. If it were the other way around, we wouldn't be so fucking naive . . .

Hey man, haven't seen you post here before so, welcome!

Now into the 'meat and taters'....


You're incorrect about atheism, maybe I can help clear things up.

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. If someone wants to go a step further and say 'I believe god doesn't exist', that is not the position of atheism, it's a separate claim - one of knowledge, not belief.

People often confuse 'a lack of belief', and 'a belief that something doesn't exist'. They are very distinct, and shouldn't be confused. A belief that 'something doesn't exist' is a positive claim, and should be justified. An example of how lack of a belief differs from the belief that something does not exist, is a baby; they are atheists because they don't know about the existence of god, therefore; they have no belief in god. They are a - (without) theist - (theism), or without theism (atheist).

Anyone who states 'god does not exist' or 'I believe god doesn't exist', is making a positive claim, and in a public forum people are going to expect evidence or reasoning as to why you hold that belief. When you make a claim, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on the person rejecting the claim.

Simply not having a belief is different, because you're responding to the positive claim that theists are making, that 'god exists'. Therefore, atheism isn't a claim in and of itself only a response to a claim.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. If someone wants to go a step further and say 'I believe god doesn't exist', that is not the position of atheism, it's a separate claim - one of knowledge, not belief. Two more very distinct things.

I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe God exists.

One is positive (believe), the other negative (do not believe), but they actually mean the same thing.

If you have no beliefs, ipso facto, you do not believe.

The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .

Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Are Buddhists "theists"? Buddha isn't a god . . .

Are Buddhists "athiests"? They believe in divine teachings . . .

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe God exists.

One is positive (believe), the other negative (do not believe), but they actually mean the same thing.

If you have no beliefs, ipso facto, you do not believe.

The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .

Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.

Completely wrong.

If I believe someone is not guilty, that doesn't mean I believe they are innocent. It means the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to convince me of guilt without a reasonable doubt.

Saying "I don't believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe no gods exist"

 

[Beefbisquit]

I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe God exists.

One is positive (believe), the other negative (do not believe), but they actually mean the same thing.

If you have no beliefs, ipso facto, you do not believe.

I agree except for the part about them being the same thing. That doesn't make sense to me.

The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .

There's a difference between 'god' and mom. The concept of 'god' has to be taught, there is no innate 'god knowledge'. So, babies couldn't assign the label of god to their mother unless they were taught about the concept of god in the first place. Once you are informed about the concept of god, you can formulate an opinion on the validity of the claim and either believe or not believe.

But going one step further than atheism, an atheist can be a gnostic atheist and claim to know that god doesn't exist, but gnostic atheists are few and far between. Gnostic theists on the other hand, are the most common form of theists, in that they claim to know for certain god exists.

Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.

Non-belief is not a belief. It's the absence of a belief.

Anyone who doesn't have a belief in god, including babies and people who have never encountered the concept of god, are atheists. It doesn't mean they hold the belief that 'god does not exist', and their non-belief in a god cannot be a belief itself because the concept is completely foreign to them.

It's like saying non-apples are still apples. Well, no. I'm sorry, but they're not. lol

 

[Prawn Connery]

Completely wrong.

If I believe someone is not guilty, that doesn't mean I believe they are innocent. It means the prosecution failed to produce enough evidence to convince me of guilt without a reasonable doubt.

Saying "I don't believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe no gods exist"

Have a think about what you just wrote. If you believe someone is not innocent of a crime, then that is what you believe. It has nothing to do with the legal definition of the word "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" (a conditional term).

Any juror in any democratic legal system can believe someone is guilty of a crime and still aquit them (for whatever reason) - which frequently happens. Their verdict has nothing - nothing - to do with what they may truly believe. They are simply following the letter of the law - or not - regardless of their actual beliefs.

I may truly believe you're a nice guy. But that doesn't stop me saying or doing bad things to you, does it? And vice-versa.

Beliefs are beliefs - no matter what a person articulates.

 

[Prawn Connery]

There's a difference between 'god' and mom. The concept of 'god' has to be taught, there is no innate 'god knowledge'.

The concept of YOUR god - or perhaps someone else's - may need to be taught (in scriptures, for example), but how do civilisations as a whole come up with those concepts in the first place?

Aha!

The concept of "god" - ruler, protector, creator, arbiter, whatever - is innate in every living thing. Every living thing looks up to something else that influences its existence.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the land of the simple, the unexplained is God.

not [/B]a belief. It's the absence of a belief.

Absence of anything makes as much sense as nothing being nothing. Which conceptually (to our simple brains) cannot be quantified, let alone imagined.

Try to think of "nothing" right now. You can't do it.

When you have no beliefs, you have a belief: it is your belief in the absence of beliefs.

It's like saying non-apples are still apples. Well, no. I'm sorry, but they're not. lol

This gets to the very "core" (sorry!) of philosophy. A non-apple may still be an apple - because an apple cannot exist without a non-apple. Otherwise it is nothing. It's not an apple. It's not a non-apple. So it must be the same thing, right?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Have a think about what you just wrote. If you believe someone is not innocent of a crime, then that is what you believe. It has nothing to do with the legal definition of the word "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" (a conditional term).

Any juror in any democratic legal system can believe someone is guilty of a crime and still aquit them (for whatever reason) - which frequently happens. Their verdict has nothing - nothing - to do with what they may truly believe. They are simply following the letter of the law - or not - regardless of their actual beliefs.

I may truly believe you're a nice guy. But that doesn't stop me saying or doing bad things to you, does it? And vice-versa.

Beliefs are beliefs - no matter what a person articulates.

How/why would a juror believe someone is guilty and still acquit them for their crime? It is the job of the prosecutor to present enough valid evidence for condemnation.

I'm having a hard time understanding your point..

 

[Prawn Connery]

OJ Simpson. I rest my case.

 

[skunkd0c]

I'm sorry if to me it sounds a little more like semantics . . .

I believe God does not exist.

I do not believe God exists.

One is positive (believe), the other negative (do not believe), but they actually mean the same thing.

If you have no beliefs, ipso facto, you do not believe.

The child in your example may not be schooled in any particular religion, but that doesn't stop him or her believing that - for example - their mother is god. After all, she created the child, feeds, nurtures, controls and protects. She is the child's world and the centre of its universe. Until it starts thinking for itself . . .

Someone in this thread has already stated that: "Nothing is still something." Non-belief is still a belief. You have no beliefs because you CHOOSE not to have any beliefs. That is active, not passive.

This is as far as i have got

I do not know if god exists
if god does exist it will be significant to me
I do not wish to worship any supernatural beings in exchange for immortality
If god does exist i wish to negotiate a new deal for myself that does not involve subordination and worship
If god is a Pink Unicorn that is ok with me as i am not prejudice.

Peace

 

[Prawn Connery]

You may find if "God" exists, s/he/it will be so far advanced - so incomprehensible to all of us - that s/he/it will impose absolutely no human conditions on you or your "soul" at all. Because "God" is not human, and therefore not subject to the same failings, beliefs or conceptual processes that we are bound by.

Anthropomorphism is the practice of humanising things that are not human. This includes deities.

"God" does not judge. "God" does not get angry or vengeful. "God" does not get jealous. "God" has no pride. "God" is omnipotent, and therefore knows what we all will do - and why we will do it - before we are even born. If there is a "God", then we are nothing. We are certainly in no position to question or assert anything in relation to any omnipotent being and/or its existance.

"God" - by the very definition of the word - must be so far removed from the human condition and our simple concepts of existance that we couldn't even begin to understand what s/he/it has planned for us. If there is a plan at all . . .