Why are you atheists so angry?

8 ‘undred

(found it)

edited – double post

Did he do the Fandango?

NO that was scaramouche

The trouble arises because “private beliefs” (on both sides) often spill out into public areas like laws, education and justice.

Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s knowledge

dogmatix: I don’t think anyone on the thread has argued otherwise.

Surely there must be somebody in 800 posts? Somebody go and have a check.

Wiktionary offers

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs). ?[quotations ?]

CharlieMungus – Member
The trouble arises because “private beliefs” (on both sides) often spill out into public areas like laws, education and justice.
Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s knowledge

Actually, I don’t think that even Richard Dawkins would agree with you on that, Mr Mungus.

But whatever.

can’t be bothered to read the thread.did I miss anything?

Actually, I don’t think that even Richard Dawkins would agree with you on that, Mr Mungus.

But whatever.

So, you’re saying Atheism is just a belief.

No. I’m saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

As any good epistemologist would say.

“By definition, no one knows what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist. The claim that God has taken the initiative and chosen to reveal himself to some people is not nearly as unbelievable”. Grantley Morris.

To be absolutely certain that God doesn’t exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

When Christians and atheists debate the question “Does God exist?” atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. When an interrogative such as “Does God exist?” is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.

Ultimately, no amount of evidence can convert an unbeliever to belief. That is solely the work of God.

Indeed.

To some extent, I agree with the great atheist Betrand Russell who declared that there was no point in arguing God’s existence, because it was by definition unarguable.

Some people have faith that God exists. Some do not. End of.

Looks like I’ve missed a humdinger here. Can anyone point me to the best summary on these 21 pages?

There is no summary. It’s a black hole. 🙄

When Christians and atheists debate the question “Does God exist?” atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. When an interrogative such as “Does God exist?” is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer.

He who makes the positive statement must provide the proof.

If I were to say “There is *no* god” then I would have to stump up proof. Similarly if someone says “There *is* a god” then they have to prove it.

I’m the same as Dawkins (yes, I’ve read the book). He’s an agnostic insofar as you cannot prove a negative. There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists or even one made out of blancmange so you can’t rule any of them out logically.

So why don’t we all just shut up about it then, and get back to drooling over mountain bikes/making fun of the Tories/placating hurt feelings/posting LOL cats/making fun of TJ?

Not forgetting this parallel thread…another belter

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/doorstep-god-botherers

PhilAmon is a proper believer, we tried to out him as a rabid homophobe using AdamW as the bait. Didnt work, he’s a nice fella.

No. I’m saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

So are you saying it isn’t a belief?

There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists

A conclusion based on? …

Ultimately, no amount of evidence can convert an unbeliever to belief. That is solely the work of God.

so you’re saying God chooses who believes in him, and by extention who goes to heaven?

seems somewhat arbitrary?

A conclusion based on? …

Based on the fact that you cannot prove a negative. The only logical position would be (to my view):

“I see no evidence of X existing at this time, while this is not proof of not-X I don’t see any reason to consider X to exist unless evidence is forthcoming.”

Therefore I believe that there is an infinitely small chance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Yahweh/blancmange god(chocolate) existing but so small as it is insignificant.

Until any evidence shows otherwise.

EDIT: chocolate, of course would be god. Raspberry is an abomination! 😀

Jeremiah 29:13 – “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”

1 Chronicles 28:9 – “…If you seek him, he will be found by you…”

So until you’ve tested God by the above, you can’t genuinely say He doesn’t exist.

“By definition, no one knows what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist

If that is the case, then this “god” thing must have set up a universe in part of which (that is, the increasingly larger, over time, bit we are able to study) there is no evidence of it’s existence.

Seems unlikely to me, but let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is so.

This suggests that the supposed being is constantly withdrawing beyond our ever-expanding sphere of enquiry, as if it does not want to be discovered.

Well that’s a slightly more sophisticated scenario than the traditional “god is invisible but everywhere”, but you’d still need “faith” to believe it, there being no evidence.

…and given the exclusivity built in to religion, social control/tribal construct thingy, each religion insists that their god is the only one. Given this lack of consensus among believers, the logical position is to assume its all made up.

I’m late to this party so this may already have been done, but as someone who teeters between atheist on a grumpy/argumentative day and agnostic on a sitting-on-the-fence day, I was surprised how much I enjoyed this read:

CharlieMungus – Member

No. I’m saying that by any definition of knowledge, neither theism nor atheism count as such.

So are you saying it isn’t a belief?

What?!? I’m saying exactly what I said. Neither atheism nor theism can be counted as knowledge.

I’m not interested in whether you want to call either a ‘belief’. I took issue with your comment above that declared atheism to be knowledge.

In the terms of this debate – if that’s what it can be called – neither side is talking about knowledge according to any classical definition.

Jeremiah 29:13 – “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”

1 Chronicles 28:9 – “…If you seek him, he will be found by you…”

And?

AdamW 1:7-9 – “I could murder a curry.”
AdamW 5:98-129 – “You know that Flying Spaghetti Monster? I’m sure I have been touched by his noodly appendage. Bit sticky. Red. Quite tasty sauce though, but it could do with a bit more salt.”

Please don’t do that: the final fall-back of the religious is usually to give quotes from their own book as fallback to their beliefs.

At this point someone usually goes nuclear with: Psalm 14:1 – “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god” which is basically insulting.

Jeremiah 29:13 – “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”

1 Chronicles 28:9 – “…If you seek him, he will be found by you…”

So until you’ve tested God by the above, you can’t genuinely say He doesn’t exist.

that settles that then. oh actually no it doesn’t. the existence/ non-existence debate does not have to follow rules written in a pro-god book.

crikey – Member
…and given the exclusivity built in to religion, social control/tribal construct thingy, each religion insists that their god is the only one. Given this lack of consensus among believers, the logical position is to assume its all made up.

First of all, your logic is faulty. You could say that a position to take is that religion is made up, but not that it is the position to take – and especially not that it is the (only) logical position to take.

Secondly, your supposition of exclusivity, while true in some cases, is by no means true in all. Therefore your premise is faulty.

I do not suggest that your point of view is entirely invalid; only that it presents a number of problems.

Sorry, I have a cold…

I think what I’m trying to suggest is that a lack of consensus among those who believe in god, in any of the organised religions, would seem to add weight to the theory that such religions have a far more earthly origin.
In the common language, if you fellas can’t even decide on a story, do you have a credible position from which to suggest atheists are mistaken?

And the answer to that will depend on the theologian (of any religion) one talks to, as there are some who will maintain a militant exclusivity, and some who will maintain a generous, coherent universality.

And while I can see why this would present a problem to an inquirer seeking objective ‘proof’, I would equally say that subjective beings as we are, there will always be those who will come to appreciate one view or another and place their faith in it, and some who will not.

Which is fair enough, I think.

Fair enough indeed. I suspect that the arguments for and against existence and for and against religion come down to individuals, which is ultimately the way things should be.

What?!? I’m saying exactly what I said. Neither atheism nor theism can be counted as knowledge.

I’m not interested in whether you want to call either a ‘belief’. I took issue with your comment above that declared atheism to be knowledge.

Surely it can only be knowledge or belief. what else is there?

What’s that cult, you know the one where they worship a human sacrifice and have a ritual with cannibalism at it’s centre, oh what’s it called? You know the one, the main symbol of it’s followers is a torture device?

^^ Not my own but I really like it…

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god” which is basically insulting.

A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left

.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

God said we are all stupid

Its is just a stupid arcane belief stystem that explains the world in a simple way understood by people who dont have much knowledge and were not scholarly at the time- it is part of the human condition to explain th eworld and these are the simplest ways. When we reject them we call them myths …how this unevidenced BS account of life is not considered a myth is lost on me tbh. Nothing is unprovable and anthing could concievably happen no matter how unlikely.
It is just delusional – it is culturally accpetable so its rude to call them mad for following a non existent entity and feeling its presenc ein their life
its not rude for them to say homosexuals should be killed or to tell me I will burn in hell but hey kids remember they are special and we should respect them whilst they are as rude as they like as it is in their made up book

Thanks, consciousness. We only have you to thank for this.

> There is a minuscule chance that the christian/muslim/whatever god exists
A conclusion based on? …

I’d agree with that, just based on straight odds.

If we agree (unlikely I know) that every god is equally likely to actually exist. And accept that most religions insist this is an exclusive deal (or at least have very serious flaws in their mythology if it isn’t). Then you are looking at odds of tens-of-thousands-to-one that your particular brand of deity is the one that actually exists.

i.e.

p = 1 / (n + 1)

where
n is the total number of different gods/deities/spirits worshipped in the history of mankind
p is the chance your deity is the real one

No? 🙂

But if it helps, I also accept that atheism is a “belief”, albeit one that doesn’t require “faith”.

Ah, but million to one chances work nine times out of ten, allegedly.

its not rude for them to say homosexuals should be killed or to tell me I will burn in hell but hey kids

Yes it is. No one is saying that is acceptable either, and particularly no one on here is saying those things about homosexual or you. Well, not from religious standpoint anyway.

joao3v16 quit quoting the bible at us. It’s insulting and makes you sound like a zealot with no mind of your own.