My issues with Athiests.

[Ziv]

There are no absolute truths.

 

If that's true, what do you call that statement?

[Satenza]

I suspect there are, but for the benefit of the scientific method we can never know they are absolute.

[Kilo]

I've never seen a crazy guy preaching that God DOESN'T exist on a high street. I have however seen quite a few Christians doing so. Christians push their beliefs a lot more (in general) that Athiests.

 

 

 

What street? lol :^o

 

 

 

I don't think the Christians are government funded either..

[Rebdragon]

I suspect there are, but for the benefit of the scientific method we can never know they are absolute.

 

Heh, posted that while I was typing, pretty much a simpler, better version of what I'm about to say :-w .

 

 

 

Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be.

 

Yep, too bad many people don't get the concept. No matter how many subjective opinions you add together, the sum is still a subjective opinion, just like it's constituents. There's no getting past that, no creating objective truth from subjective POV's :-$ .

 

 

 

What makes truth objective? What is your method for finding absolute truth?

 

Sorry, I was going off my theological definitions of objective and subjective truth. Objective truth is part of The Truth, absolute truth, while subjective truth is merely composed of our experiences. So, from my theological definitions, science is still part of subjective truth, but it's method thus far has proven to be the best way of obtaining objective truth, or at least from what we've observed, as findings using the scientific method hold out the best when examining the natural world. For all we know, this universe is just an illusion. We can't be sure, we can't know Truth, but that's no reason to say that examining understanding natural phenomena, which thus far have portrayed a universe with static laws, is anywhere close to being equal to guessing with faith. If what is examined can be repeated, and if it can be repeated many times beyond that, human logic speaks to say that what is observed from such tests is part of objective truth.

 

 

 

There can be know knowing that one has found absolute truth, but at the same time, because our universe appears to have unshifting (or at the very least very very very slowly shifting) laws, natural phenomena can be tested, understood, and valuable for the future. That's how we get facts and [scientific, mind you] theories.

 

 

 

Can you deny the value of searching for absolute truth through science, even if it is physically impossible to know that we've found it?

[happybappy]

There are no absolute truths.

 

If that's true, what do you call that statement?

 

 

 

 

 

To "prove" anything you need to make assumptions. The less assumptions you make, the more likely it is true. For example science assumes that the flying spaghetti monster is not changing it's results with his noodley appendages.

[Blingkachi50]

Dude shut the hell up,

 

 

 

I myself was an aethiest at one point, and the aethiesm community never pushes anything on the christians, however I got called "devil worshipper" a lot by some christians at school, and my parents didnt even want to hear the word... Aetheist's only defend themselves when other religious groups shout Blasphomey from the bell towers so we dont have to live in redicule because of a religions bigitry

 

 

 

I'm an atheist and so is one of my friends... gotta love the stuck up christians that can't open there mind up and exept that, hey maybe there isn't a god. Never once have I ever seen an atheist push their beliefs or whatever onto anyone else. Yet all the time it's always with the same [cabbage] when I tell someone that I'm atheist. The whole "omg you don't believe in god?! i hate you, you're f'ed up, go away."

[Evilperson]

Thank you for an overview of the scientific method. Now please prove to me that it is objective

 

 

 

Christianity is not objective because they are trying to convert whoever they may be talking to.

 

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. What does explaining your position have anything to do with objectivity?

 

 

 

Christianity is like that stuck up kid who never can be wrong and if he is, he just calls you the three letter G word.

 

 

 

Your entire post leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of objectivity. Maybe you could explain it to me, so I can better understand your position.

 

 

 

I know what objectivity is...the point i am trying to make is scientists do nothing other than try to prove themselves to be correct. And they approach these truths by being objective. Christians are subjective in means of that they reject strongly supported theories (IE evolution) for other fictitious material. Since they are Christian, they are obliged to prove Christianity correct. Scientists are just trying to prove truths in general. Or come as close to them as they can.

 

 

 

That last statement was about if scientists are wrong, then they say oh well, i will have to try another approach and continue finding facts in life. Instead of a Christian, if proved wrong, would call the thing/person who proved them wrong a sinner or blasphemous.

[fakeitormakeit]

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY "ISSUES" WITH ANYONE ELSES BELIEFS! I mean sure you don't have to agree and you can object to them but you should never be saying some of the [lalalala] that some people say about each other's religions today! And I heavy dislike when an atheist says "Christanity" unless you have spoken to all of the people in the belief and make some statement, and I heavy dislike when a Christian or any other religion-follower for that matter says "Atheists" and makes some kind of sterotypical statement.

 

 

 

You don't have to agree with someone's beliefs but who ever mocks or insults someone else's beliefs wouldn't be even be deserving in my opinion to touch the floor I spat at.

 

 

 

I respect all Atheists who don't insult any religion-followers and vice versa.

[warri0r45]

Yes, they are both supernatral notions. They are both assumed without experiencing them. First you assume existance (though you can make some decent arguments for this), then you assume characteristics. The more characteristics you assume, the more of a bold claim you make.

 

 

 

The number of believers means nothing when you understand the way in which most religion spreads and the mentality people have when they are religious. It's never an easy task to convince someone that the unprovable or unfalsifiable idea that they've held to with such faith for years is baseless. You always get rationalisations such as 'you can't prove god dosen't exist' and so forth. I would have seen such a rationalisation as a crutch rather than an upside but that's just me.

 

 

 

Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be.

 

I totally agree with your statement: "Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be." (1) But why would you then write this: "99%+ of all scientists accept evolution" as some kind of argument for evolution. I'd say it's rather similar as (2) they assume that macro-evolution is true despite of the lack of evidence. Prehaps you'll say that there is evidence of macro-evolution but to me that evidence is about as strong as if I would be saying that there is evidence for christianity. Evidence such as the Bible or Jesus.

 

 

 

(3) What I find to be strange is that you seem to think that some random belief is as likely (or unlikely) to be the truth as christianity is. I'm actually puzzled by the vast amount of muslims in the world. Just the sheer number of believers makes me think that there is something to it. It's strange that th are so many people who devote their lives to an idea/belief. And not just to believe that there is a God but to live by ancient books who tells you what's wrong and right and how to live your life. (4) I guess a solution would be that faith is some kind of mental disorder. But then it's a very common one as the non-religious people make up for only about 15% of the world's population.

 

 

 

(1) What context did I write that in? If I wrote it to suggest the more accept it, the more true it is, I was wrong.

 

 

 

(2) I didn't say anything about evolution in this discussion. Scientists don't assume macroevolution is true in spite of lacking evidence; there is evidence, thus it is accepted. If they assume it is true in spite of lacking evidence, which as far as I can tell is not the case, then I'd dearly like to hit them in the sternum several times.

 

 

 

(3) Strange for you, not strange for me. Look from outside of your religion and you might see why I make such statements. As for sheer numbers and why would they all be following a lie? Number one, you neglect that the root of all religious ideals is faith and this is seen as virtuous. Number two, I don't think you've been thinking hard enough about how religion spreads through society (for the most part). I'm not in the least bit suprised that common ideas have spread through society to the extent that they have.

 

 

 

(4) I wouldn't go that far. I just see people who value faith over reason as having thier priorities mixed up. I rather being as honest as I possibly can with regards to what is and what is not by relying on what I can know rather than what I can not.

[warri0r45]

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY "ISSUES" WITH ANYONE ELSES BELIEFS! I mean sure you don't have to agree and you can object to them but you should never be saying some of the [lalalala] that some people say about each other's religions today! And I heavy dislike when an atheist says "Christanity" unless you have spoken to all of the people in the belief and make some statement, and I heavy dislike when a Christian or any other religion-follower for that matter says "Atheists" and makes some kind of sterotypical statement.

 

 

 

You don't have to agree with someone's beliefs but who ever mocks or insults someone else's beliefs wouldn't be even be deserving in my opinion to touch the floor I spat at.

 

 

 

I respect all Atheists who don't insult any religion-followers and vice versa.

 

 

 

I agree with you. Not all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and not all atheists have positive belief of the non-existance of god. Many christians are not fundamentalists and many atheists merely lack positive belief in the existance of god, to give some examples.

[Ambassadar]

So at what point should a person begin to have issues with another person's belief?

 

 

 

What if a person sees thoughts being said that were the same thoughts being said in the early 1930's in Japan or Germany? Should a person step up and say hold on a minute, let's look what happens when those beliefs actually become mainstream and get projected upon the world?

 

 

 

Sure there is a time to stand by and be nice and polite and agree to disagree but sometimes there are beliefs that are flat out scary.

 

 

 

I guess the question I would like to hear an answer to from someone saying it is wrong to have issues with another person's beliefs is where is the line where you should begin to have an issue or do you truly believe we should never at any point have issues with other's beliefs?

[atestarossa]

I'm a Christian, and i do often hear by atheists that i'm "brainwashed" or so on, just because i believe that God created the earth...

 

 

 

i do find it interesting to discuss with people about christianity, if there is a god, or not... and as long as people always stay open minded, then probably both parts will learn of the discussion..

 

 

 

but unfortunately(sp?), there is a lot, both religious people, and atheists, that can't see that they might be wrong, or doesn't want to ask questions about what they think theirselfes...

 

 

 

this topic is so difficult anyway, that i'll probably not get an atheist i'm discussing with to get "believe" and that's not what i'm discussing for either, but it makes you think, and that is healthy, no matter what religion you believe in. (calling atheism a religion here now) But this works the other way as well... my faith is strong, and i'll have to see very good proof to be convinced that i'm wrong... wich is impossible as for now, as whatever created us, is smarter than us, so we can't ever understand it

[venomai]

but unfortunately(sp?), there is a lot, both religious people, and atheists, that can't see that they might be wrong, or doesn't want to ask questions about what they think theirselfes...

 

Just a quick correction... There are a lot of religious atheists (Buddhism is atheistic, for example). It is illogical to compare religion to atheism as if they are opposites.

 

 

 

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY "ISSUES" WITH ANYONE ELSES BELIEFS!

 

I think there are many cases in which it's valid to have an issue with sombody's beliefs, especially when they aim to degrade, discriminate or harm another individual. Take the Ku Klux Klan, for example.

 

 

 

I guess the question I would like to hear an answer to from someone saying it is wrong to have issues with another person's beliefs is where is the line where you should begin to have an issue or do you truly believe we should never at any point have issues with other's beliefs?

 

In my opinion, the line is where the belief/religion begins to negatively effect the believer or other individuals (either through physical or psychological damage).

[Thankyou]

It's times like these, I like to ask "What would Jebus do?"

[Satenza]

 

 

 

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY "ISSUES" WITH ANYONE ELSES BELIEFS!

 

I think there are many cases in which it's valid to have an issue with sombody's beliefs, especially when they aim to degrade, discriminate or harm another individual. Take the Ku Klux Klan, for example.

 

 

 

I guess the question I would like to hear an answer to from someone saying it is wrong to have issues with another person's beliefs is where is the line where you should begin to have an issue or do you truly believe we should never at any point have issues with other's beliefs?

 

In my opinion, the line is where the belief/religion begins to negatively effect the believer or other individuals (either through physical or psychological damage).

 

 

 

There is a difference between having a racist belief and acting on that though, I'm not overjoyed when people have racist beliefs but as long as they do not spread that then thats their opinion. Acting on that, like if they were to not employ someone because of race, is discrimination. Anyone should be able to hold any belief, but where to draw the line at when to punish a person because of a belief and that infringing on personal liberty is often hard.

 

 

 

I mean take for example the historian who refused to believe that the holocaust happened, or happened to the extreme's it did. In Germany and other European countries that means a jail sentance and he got one, something which i feel is completley against someones liberty.

[weezcake]

I haven't read the whole thread, although I'm pretty sure I know what the arguments are on both sides...

 

 

 

I honestly don't care what someone's religion is. I also don't want to hear how great it is, why I should become one, etc etc. And I don't expect anyone to care about what mine is either.

 

 

 

I don't consider myself an atheist. Labels are dangerous. I just don't believe in a god or a supreme being.

 

 

 

Now can't we all just get along? :wink:

[Rebdragon]

I haven't read the whole thread, although I'm pretty sure I know what the arguments are on both sides...

 

 

 

I honestly don't care what someone's religion is. I also don't want to hear how great it is, why I should become one, etc etc. And I don't expect anyone to care about what mine is either.

 

 

 

I don't consider myself an atheist. Labels are dangerous. I just don't believe in a god or a supreme being.

 

 

 

Now can't we all just get along? :wink:

 

Nevah.

 

...

 

 

 

We're talking about the human race here, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Nevah-evah.

 

 

 

[Yes, I'm on a anti-human race realistically pessimistic roll the past few days, sue me.]

[Cars066]

Hi, I'm an Atheist and I say this in defence of my beliefs and not to attack others.

 

I must say that we Atheists have done very little crusading and pushing our beliefs on others (oh yeah and killing those who refuse to accept them). But times have changed and... oh wait, we still don't do that! :thumbsup: We do speak out against the wrongs that religion has done society. And I too have been called "devil worshiper." Not only that but I have had a pamphlet stuck under my parent's van's winshield wiper that said we might die if we weren't converted to some form of Christianity (apocolypse). What if some kid read that? Someone also keyed our car because it had a Darwin Fish on it. I may disagree with what others believe, and I respect their religions, but it is wrong to do things like those I have mentioned. Once again, you haven't seen as many Atheists or Bhudists (excuse my spelling please) or many other religions doing those kinds of things as much as Christians.

 

 

 

Sorry if I have offended anyone here, I respect your religion but I may disagree with some of the things that it's followers have done and do. I think society would be better if we would all coexist

[Ambassadar]

I must say that we Atheists have done very little crusading and pushing our beliefs on others (oh yeah and killing those who refuse to accept them)

 

 

 

Why do Atheists keep saying this kind of stuff when atheists killed the heck out of any religious people for the mere fact of believing in a God and worshiping that God during the French Revolution and in varied Communist countries?

 

 

 

People are screwed up. Yes 500 years ago the Catholic Church did some terrible things. Yes kings used a religious front to pursue their own agenda. Yes Communist dictators murdered millions to pursue their own agenda. No entity out there is perfect regardless of if it is a religion or lack thereof because every entity is made up of people and people are fundamentally flawed. People can take perfection and screw it up.

 

 

 

What must be done to pursue truth is to judge those people based upon the beliefs they claim to hold dear. Only then can we see what the true motives they hold and the actual pro's and con's of whatever belief structure they claim to believe.

[venomai]

There is a difference between having a racist belief and acting on that though, I'm not overjoyed when people have racist beliefs but as long as they do not spread that then thats their opinion.

 

That's why I used the Ku Klux Klan as an example. Most members of the KKK acted on their beliefs and often ended up harming the races, religions and groups they were against.

 

 

 

I mean take for example the historian who refused to believe that the holocaust happened, or happened to the extreme's it did. In Germany and other European countries that means a jail sentance and he got one, something which i feel is completley against someones liberty.

 

This is an extreme case of censorship and I don't agree with it. But he certainly did do harm to others in denying such atrocities, so I would consider it "over the line". Definitely not deserving of a jail sentence, though.

 

:idea: It's interesting to note that the historian in question, David Irving, has changed his stance since '89 and no longer denies the holocaust.[1]

[Satenza]

I do not understand, how did he do harm to others by denying them?

[warri0r45]

I must say that we Atheists have done very little crusading and pushing our beliefs on others (oh yeah and killing those who refuse to accept them)

 

 

 

Why do Atheists keep saying this kind of stuff when atheists killed the heck out of any religious people for the mere fact of believing in a God and worshiping that God during the French Revolution and in varied Communist countries?

 

 

 

People are screwed up. Yes 500 years ago the Catholic Church did some terrible things. Yes kings used a religious front to pursue their own agenda. Yes Communist dictators murdered millions to pursue their own agenda. No entity out there is perfect regardless of if it is a religion or lack thereof because every entity is made up of people and people are fundamentally flawed. People can take perfection and screw it up.

 

 

 

What must be done to pursue truth is to judge those people based upon the beliefs they claim to hold dear. Only then can we see what the true motives they hold and the actual pro's and con's of whatever belief structure they claim to believe.

 

 

 

I think they keep saying this kind of stuff because atheism dosen't involve anything else bar lacking belief in something. Everything else is the person's own baggage, just like some pro-lifers killing people is an expression of thier own baggage, not the religion they are part of.

 

 

 

If religious people were persecuted during the French revolution, is this because they follow the doctrine of atheism? Atheism says nothing of what others should believe or lack belief in and nothing of forcing anyone to do anything. Atheism is a position of an individual for the individual which entails lack of belief in a supernatural notion. The fact that atheists have done bad things is irrelevant to what atheism subscribes to, in other words. Same goes for religion. The fact that the crusades happened is irrelevant to christian culture as killing is not part of it (well, taking all those 'kill person x for action y' out of the bible would really help you guys out). I just wish every religious leader (especially in the Muslim world) severely got down the throat at those that dissent from the religion in the name of the religion, so the masses don't get the wrong impression. If someone starts using atheism and adds to it his/her own beliefs, I'm going to pull them back into line.

[venomai]

I do not understand, how did he do harm to others by denying them?

 

Try telling a holocaust survivor (or anyone who has suffered from the holocaust) that they are lying; that it never happened. That statement alone would probably cause a great deal of psychological pain. Maybe one of the most insulting aspects is that this is a historian who is denying the holocaust.

 

 

 

It would be very hard if people thought you were lying about the suffering you had to endure over the holocaust.

[Giordano]

I do not understand, how did he do harm to others by denying them?

 

Try telling a holocaust survivor (or anyone who has suffered from the holocaust) that they are lying; that it never happened. That statement alone would probably cause a great deal of psychological pain. Maybe one of the most insulting aspects is that this is a historian who is denying the holocaust.

 

 

 

It would be very hard if people thought you were lying about the suffering you had to endure over the holocaust.

 

1 person out of 7 billion whom doesn't believe it? Amazing.

[venomai]

1 person out of 7 billion whom doesn't believe it? Amazing.

 

28% of Israel's Arabs deny Holocaust. There are approximately 1,413,500 Arabs citizens of Israel. Therefore, approximately 395,780 of Israel's Arabs deny the Holocaust. That's a lot of deniers considering we're only counting the small country of Israel.[1][2]

 

 

 

It only takes one person to send an harmful and offending message.