Bonzi Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
I don't think Atheism is bad, (nice bait and switch BTW)
But if you are wrong you're fucked.
What are the negatives of Atheism?
- Thread starter Luger187
- Start date
But if you are wrong you're fucked.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
because the reason people want to kick them out is because of their religion. i thought that was stupid because most of the people hating the muslims were christians. so i was saying if the christians are allowed, so should the muslims.
personally, i dont want to kick religious people out. i want to educate people so they dont want religion in their lives. there is a difference. but in the meantime, if one religion is allowed, i dont think its fair for that religion to shun others into staying away.
yes oly, i am a muslim
Luger187
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you know how old that argument is?
You use special reasoning for your religion.
Why don't other gods or religions get the same consideration? Each of them have the same stipulation "believe in me and no other gods or "you're fucked"", so what makes you think your faith is correct?
Morgan Lynn
Active Member
I'm yawning over here. Try harder.
sen.c
Active Member
Really
I would yawning too if I jumped into every thread I didn't "Care" about to voice my opinion. Just seems to me like you are a follower and every post you have jumped in that I have been a part of is about what you say you can't stand so what gives? Do you feel the need to just jump in to feel like you have something in common with someone? No need to try just go aaway if in fact this thread is something you can't stand as stated by you, no one will miss you.
Probably the same thing that makes you think yours is, he has his right to his own opinion. The only problem is that any time someone of faith says something it is this big travisty of knowledge. The deffinition of knowledge is different to everyone. That would be like me saying that some guy I don't know is wrong or dumb because he doesn't know how to do something that I may know how to do. That is not the case, he probably knows alot of things that I don't know as well and that is called life experience. What is so funny to me is someone can be as book smart as they want but not know how to apply it to the real world situation but then often have the nerve to call some stupid or foolish that doesn't know what the book may say but rather figured out how to apply it on their own without someone giving them the info and that to me is intelligence.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
yes, really...
sen.c
Active Member
Need hooked on phonics, I can supply you with more than enough deffinitions from various sources that say prety much the same thing as the prior deffinition.
So, do you carry money with you?
So which is it your Muslim, Atheist or are you something new like maybe a Muslim Atheist? You need to choose a side riding the fence isn't going to get you anywhere.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Subjective opinions don't equal objective facts.
When you say something scientifically inaccurate on an open public forum, you should expect to be corrected, and you shouldn't feel like being corrected makes the other guy arrogant or superior. Accepting you made a mistake will gain you respect and credibility.
I'm afraid you're simply wrong.
People who don't study scientific theories or understand basic scientific concepts won't have the resoures to talk about them, exactly the same as if I didn't study car engines or motors, I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about if someone asked me.
Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Do you know what natural selection is? Do you know what DNA is? This stuff proves without a shadow of a doubt that the theory of evolution is the explanation for what is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
all you have to do is look at the word. without a belief in god DOES NOT mean the same thing as belief that there is no god. belief in no god infers that there is a belief system there with reasoning for why there is no god. an atheist does not see evidence that convinces them there is no god or that there is a god. they simply have not been convinced that there is one. that is it. however, some atheists do believe there is no god, but that is separate from atheism itself.
i was being sarcastic
Bonzi Lighthouse
Well-Known Member
Theres a god but it's ET?
Were are a science experiment gone horribly wrong by adolescent Aliens?
undertheice
Well-Known Member
it must be nice to be so sure of yourself, even if it is a false confidence. the state of knowing something is not the black and white matter you seem to think it is. to know something is merely to perceive or understand it as true and this relies on a series of assumptions. our first and most dangerous assumption is that we can trust our perceptions. when those laws of the universe we so carefully describe are discovered, it is through the perception of our surroundings that they are proven. even the relatively simple laws ascribed to gravity or light are only as true as our perceptions allow us to document. trapped in a tiny segment of time and space, that other laws may elsewhere override our own puny understandings is a possibility that must be taken into account. considering this, our origins and any possible meaning to our existence become a giant question mark and our musings merely assumptions. it is hubris to assume that there is some constancy to the universe, the same sort of hubris that once led scientific minds to believe our world to be the center of the universe.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
sen.c
Active Member
No sir, you are taking the new liberal translation of the deffinition which doesn't suprise me. The deffinition says both but if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God. Now you may want to prescribe to the "New Atheist" deffinition but the true atheist like I said before would call you a false atheist. Why all the change, what was wrong with atheism as it was started in the 18th century? I will tell you what is wrong, it asked to much so they figured they would change it as they went to better suit them much the same as how so many churches distort the Bible and it's teachings today as well.
American currency states "IN GOD WE TRUST" which is clearly stating that there is a GOD or as you would put it a Deity. So I would think that by the true deffinition of Atheism you wouldn't be able to carry American currency in your
pocket but rather check card, credit card, or checks because they do not have anything on them that represent a god or deity. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.
I am sorry that I don't fit into your little box but my statement was very accurate. Who are you to tell anyone what is acceptable as knowledge and what is not?
You are absolutely correct but does that make one more intelligent than the other? No, and believe it or not some people can actualy be so smart that they are litterally dumb.
You know the answer to those questions are so let's don't go there. Nice try on redirecting the debate but not gonna happen the subject is Atheism.
Look you can try and spin this all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you know what this is all about and so do others let's quit dancing around the subject shall we.
Atheism as it was founded was in it's simplest formwas the belief in no Deity or God.
Sometimes you can overthink things. The fact is that knowledge is exactly that knowledge, without knowledge of things we would still be running around in loin cloths and living in grass huts. Knowledge is measureable to to say anything other would be silly. Last time I checked the planets are still in the same order, the sun still rises and sets I mean really do you have to think about things so deeply sometimes that you talk yourself out of anything you ever learned.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The possibility is always taken into account. Its been pointed out before, science doesn't claim absolute certainty, so this is always automatically assumed when people talk about it. I know I don't have to explain that to you and it seems like you're splitting hairs when you bring up things like that.
I know nothing is certain, what I'm saying is that the way we measure reality is dependent upon our perceptions, so we are forced to make the assumptions because there is no other way to go about it. The method we've created enables us to weed out the false assumptions by experimenting. It's the best method we have. It's reliable and predictable.
Knowledge is the facts as established, the results of which can be confirmed by prediction and replicated in any lab using this method.
Knowledge is humanities collective perception based on replicable results.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
then what is someone with a lack of belief called? what true atheist texts are you referring to?
they used to see atheists as antitheists because people didnt realize that you can have a lack of belief in god, without believing that there is no god. they saw it as anti-religious, which still happens today(just read this thread). also words do change over time so its perfectly reasonable for it to have a different definition now than it used to, right?
i dont know enough about 18th century atheism to comment.
oh i see. so it was to protect themselves from the logical reasoning of religious folks?
couldnt the religious just ask if they believe there is no god? then if the person responds yes, give the person their religious argument for why god does?
why does the term atheism even matter?
i carry a piece of paper around that says 'in god we trust' because thats what this country uses for money. because it says we trust in god does not make it true for me. its just a nice saying they put on there to shut the christians up. obviously i think it should be taken off the dollar because it is a blanket statement which is simply not true at all.
says who?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
This is simply an appeal to ignorance. It's true our senses and testing can only give us an approximation of the truth, but pointing to what we don't know and suggesting it has bearing on what we do know is nothing more than speculation. It may be that universal laws are not confined to our tiny segment of time and space. You can't infer anything from what we don't know.
Obviously if we are talking about something like sex of a kitten, opinion is irrelevant. The earth is not the center of the universe, no matter what opinion humans have about it. Obviously, your opinion about your faith, which is the context being played here, has no bearing on if that faith is correct.
sen.c
Active Member
No, now you are putting words in my mouth. I has nothing to do with anyone but the person that is prescribing to it and in my statement I said there are christians that do it too.
It comes down to the old argument that someone is more radical in their belief than another so they split and the people that are the hardliners stick with one another and the more liberal stick together.
Even within those two groups sooner or later they will reach a point where they draw the line and they break off and so on and so on until you have numerous types of Atheists. Just as stated before
you see this alot in churches today, so see no one immune to it so don't feel like you are being picked on.
No, you carry it because it suits you, we have many forms of payment in this country so if you really were a hard line atheist you wouldn't carry it.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
yes there are many types of atheists. it is a broad term. those that believe there is no god also arent convinced that a god exists(so they do fit the definition of atheism). but you can be an atheist and only have a lack of belief that god does exist, without the belief that god doesnt exist. you can be an agnostic atheist, which is being unconvinced that a god exists, along with the belief that humans cannot know one way or the other. by your definition, you would believe that we cannot know if god can exist, yet still believe you know god doesnt exist? arent those conflicting terms?
the belief that god doesnt exist is an additional belief that i would say a good amount of atheists prescribe to. but that doesnt mean the definition of atheism itself is the belief there is no god.
i carry it because its tangible and i dont like dealing with banks. i only use my bank account for when someone far away needs to give me money for some reason, or vise versa. they just deposit it to my account at their bank. and i dont want to start using credit cards because i will get carried away and end up in debt.
being an atheist doesnt mean im afraid to hold a piece of paper that says 'in god we trust'. in fact, i dont ever really notice it unless i look at the bill closely or someone mentions it.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Where are your sources for this knowledge. You say, " if you research true atheist text it states that there is no God" which text are you speaking of? We do not have a written book we draw our knowledge from. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, you are arguing against a small subset of atheists who make an assertion that is exceeds the position required for atheism. Your 'spin', as you like to put it, amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is what allows you to enter your typical song and dance routines any time this subject comes up, which includes taking a definition that clearly includes what we are saying, and contriving it to exclude that definition. Bottom line is that this is the position we take, and this is not the position you argue against.
So if someone has a smurfs poster on their wall, they must believe in smurfs. And if someone does not believe in smurfs, they by definition must shun all smurf related material? Exclusion and willful ignorance are things religion engages in, atheism is not concerned with doctrine.
We have an obvious and accepted standard for validating knowledge. This is a standard you accept and benefit from in your everyday life. Do you take medication based on solely on someone believing it will not harm you, or do you want the validation that comes from testing the knowledge. You want some indication that the drug is safe, some support for the posited knowledge. There is nothing wrong with extending this standard to the idea of a faith and a deity. You only seem to make exceptions when it benefits your belief.
Without training the human mind is fallible to mistakes, with training we can reach a state where we are aware of these mistakes and can correct for them. This is no way makes one person more intelligent than the other, it makes them more qualified to speak on the subject, and more likely to be valid than those without training.
You like to accuse others of the faults you yourself display, such as spin. Here you spin our valid and applicable points to be nothing more than dancing around the subject. The subject is the very thing we are all discussing, and we are engaging it head on. To pretend we are avoiding the real issues here requires true spin.
Similar threads
