Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

Key difference: they are not influenced by their unbelief. I think you're conflating anti-theism with atheism here.

 

You're also making a lot of generalizations about atheists. How can you claim that atheists are even more pushy/intolerent/bigoted, when you're taking non-representative examples? The vocal parties are almost inherently worse than the less vocal ones. Oh, and if you're going to assert that atheists take misunderstandings of religion, then you must show what these misunderstandings are. It's written in scripture, which actually makes it very convenient for us to scrutinize religion.

 

It's funny that you defend theism simply because you think atheists are as you so claim 'arses' [sic]. It speaks volumes for how much you're concerned about whether these claims are of any truth.

 

Whilst there are freedom of religion, there should also be freedom from religion. Why must any belief/disbelief be imposed on others in a public setting? It's even written in the scripture (not sure on which chapter but I can check) that one should 'pray at home, not in public'.

[Danqazmlp]

Key difference: they are not influenced by their unbelief. I think you're conflating anti-theism with atheism here.

 

You're also making a lot of generalizations about atheists. How can you claim that atheists are even more pushy/intolerent/bigoted, when you're taking non-representative examples? The vocal parties are almost inherently worse than the less vocal ones. Oh, and if you're going to assert that atheists take misunderstandings of religion, then you must show what these misunderstandings are. It's written in scripture, which actually makes it very convenient for us to scrutinize religion.

 

It's funny that you defend theism simply because you think atheists are as you so claim 'arses' [sic]. It speaks volumes for how much you're concerned about whether these claims are of any truth.

 

Whilst there are freedom of religion, there should also be freedom from religion. Why must any belief/disbelief be imposed on others in a public setting? It's even written in the scripture (not sure on which chapter but I can check) that one should 'pray at home, not in public'.

 

I don't care is basically my reply to you.

 

I don't like most of the atheists I have ever met because they have almost all been incredibly pushy on their unbelief, which they are being influenced by. On the contrary, the religious people I come in contact with are almost the complete opposite. While the atheists have always got offended at something or another, the religious people I know have barely ever even identified themselves as it, let alone pushed it on others.

 

It could be a tiny sample size, but I don't care, it's my personal experience and my beliefs.

 

Scripture may as well not be mentioned at all. You don't need scripture to believe in something. Hell, you don't even need solid belief to believe in something. Two people going to the same church/mosque may believe completely different things, and both may never know anything about scriptures. Religion is taken with a pinch of salt by many people who believe, yet even you yourself want to hark back to scriptures.

 

As I have said before Assume, you seem unable to grasp the basic concepts of belief, so will never truly understand it. It is pointless for you to even try at this stage.

 

A lot of athiests remind me of the hardcore nationalists who dislike immigrants due to a few bad eggs. They have very little knowledge of them, yet try to judge them and what they should be able to do.

[Assume Nothing]

>I don't care

 

Okay, so we've established that responding to you is pointless - but there's still disagreement so I'll still post a response nonetheless.

 

If my definitions of belief doesn't suit you, then you must present to me what you think belief entails - it's not my responsibility to speculate on that. I don't think you understand what belief truly entails either. Why do you think you know more about atheists than an atheist?

 

On a semi-related note: You're telling me that atheists in general are militant, arrogant, etc. - yet unsurprisingly, that's exactly how you're portraying yourself. Could it be irony? The difference between you and I would be the concern for truth. I care about whether my beliefs are true, but you don't seem to be.

 

What is the point of your involvement in this discussion?

[Crocefisso]

See, this is why this subject becomes so frustrating. There is no way to simply mention your belief structure without it being dissected, attacked, and critically viewed. It eventually pushes the people into a corner, until they get so upset that they leave dramatically. And then people go, "oh hueheuhuehe just another theist at work" when...what else was supposed to happen when people are so damn critical and harsh. :/

The nature of all debate is to dissect the views of others. The only thing that ever makes it unpleasant is if people cannot handle this being done to them once they've got involved, and they become upset. I think the only examples of harshness I ever see on this forum are in Tip.It Times threads - other than that, debate is only personal if one choose to take it as such.

[Danqazmlp]

>I don't care

 

Okay, we've established that responding to you is pointless.

 

If my definitions of belief doesn't suit you, then you must present to me what you think belief entails - it's not my responsibility to speculate on that. I don't think you understand what belief truly entails either. Why do you think you know more about atheists than an atheist?

 

You're telling me that atheists in general are militant, arrogant, etc. - yet unsurprisingly, that's exactly how you're portraying yourself. Is it irony?

 

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway.

 

Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best.

 

It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up.

[Peronix]

It could be a tiny sample size, but I don't care, it's my personal experience and my beliefs.

In other words, your experience and beliefs are more important to you than truth. I find it ironic that theists often accuse atheists of arrogantly relying purely on their own understanding while they base their own worldviews firmly on their own narrow perspectives. I recognize that my experience and beleifs often do not reflect reality, which is why I instead place my trust in the collective body of knowledge amassed by scientists over the centuries.

[Danqazmlp]

It could be a tiny sample size, but I don't care, it's my personal experience and my beliefs.

In other words, your experience and beliefs are more important to you than truth. I find it ironic that theists often accuse atheists of arrogantly relying purely on their own understanding while they base their own worldviews firmly on their own narrow perspectives. I recognize that my experience and beleifs often do not reflect reality, which is why I instead place my trust in the collective body of knowledge amassed by scientists over the centuries.

 

I am not a theist. I'm not a believer or an unbeliever.

 

It is human nature to take the information they have at hand to form their views. Experience is the truth as seen through your own eyes. Humans cannot be expected to have the collective knowledge of the world, and are not robots. Humans are organic lifeforms which grow and are moulded by their surroundings and the events that occur around them.

 

My view boils down to the following statement:

 

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

[Assume Nothing]

>I don't care

 

Okay, we've established that responding to you is pointless.

 

If my definitions of belief doesn't suit you, then you must present to me what you think belief entails - it's not my responsibility to speculate on that. I don't think you understand what belief truly entails either. Why do you think you know more about atheists than an atheist?

 

You're telling me that atheists in general are militant, arrogant, etc. - yet unsurprisingly, that's exactly how you're portraying yourself. Is it irony?

 

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway.

 

Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best.

 

It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up.

 

Oh, so it seems to be a personal attack on my character then? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

I never assert, claim, or suggest that belief can be quantified - just explained in layman's terms. If that's too much of a job for you, I don't know what your role is here. Your monologue about beliefs tell us nothing of their nature - e.g. what it's founded upon, whether it matters, etc.

 

The analogy is flawed at best, but that's trivial - reading on. I'm not sure what your other paragraph of sweeping generalizations are really for - explain how its relevant in any way, shape, or form? 'I can see a clearer image of both sides' - of what? It's far too ambiguous to be of any meaningful context, and it's irrelevant at best.

 

Please, if you're going to engage in this discussion, tell us why you think there is/isn't a God.

[Peronix]

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist.

[Assume Nothing]

I am not a theist. I'm not a believer or an unbeliever.

You're asserting an impossible proposition. It's only two options - acceptance, or non-acceptance of a claim, i.e. belief/unbelief. If you're undecided, you're still within the dichotomy but you've just chosen to have the extra leniency of being able to change your mind later.

 

It is human nature to take the information they have at hand to form their views. Experience is the truth as seen through your own eyes. Humans cannot be expected to have the collective knowledge of the world, and are not robots. Humans are organic lifeforms which grow and are moulded by their surroundings and the events that occur around them.

The reasoning that it's human nature is insufficient. Nor do we expect humanity to have collective knowledge of the universe/cosmos. I fail to see the relevance though.

 

My view boils down to the following statement:

 

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

You're essentially saying that you're unconcerned for whether you believe your beliefs are true/false with the 'live and let live' statement. It still fails to address the core question - is there a God?

[Danqazmlp]

>I don't care

 

Okay, we've established that responding to you is pointless.

 

If my definitions of belief doesn't suit you, then you must present to me what you think belief entails - it's not my responsibility to speculate on that. I don't think you understand what belief truly entails either. Why do you think you know more about atheists than an atheist?

 

You're telling me that atheists in general are militant, arrogant, etc. - yet unsurprisingly, that's exactly how you're portraying yourself. Is it irony?

 

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway.

 

Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best.

 

It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up.

 

Oh, so it seems to be a personal attack on my character then? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

I never assert, claim, or suggest that belief can be quantified - just explained in layman's terms. If that's too much of a job for you, I don't know what your role is here. Your monologue about beliefs tell us nothing of their nature - e.g. what it's founded upon, whether it matters, etc.

 

The analogy is flawed at best, but that's trivial - reading on. I'm not sure what your other paragraph of sweeping generalizations are really for - explain how its relevant in any way, shape, or form? 'I can see a clearer image of both sides' - of what? It's far too ambiguous to be of any meaningful context, and it's irrelevant at best.

 

Please, if you're going to engage in this discussion, tell us why you think there is/isn't a God.

 

The point just went straight over your head.

 

Belief cannot be explained because there is such a wide variety of it. It is not something even scientists can pin down, just like personality. Stop asking for anything more specific because short of God turning up, linking directly into your brain and displaying the thoughts of every human on this planet, you will not find the answer. Nobody knows exactly where beliefs lie, their origins and bases, because there are too many of them.

 

The idea of a God, Gods, no God etc all lie within this.

[Assume Nothing]

The onus is on you to present the viewpoint coherently. It is not my failure to interpret - rather, your failure to explain, but I digress. I don't see how you're finding it so difficult to explain the concept of belief when it exists in the webster's dictionary.

 

be·lief/biˈlēf/

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonyms:

faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

[Danqazmlp]

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist.

 

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

 

EDIT:

 

The onus is on you to present the viewpoint coherently. It is not my failure to interpret - rather, your failure to explain, but I digress. I don't see how you're finding it so difficult to explain the concept of belief when it exists in the webster's dictionary.

 

be·lief/biˈlēf/

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonyms:

faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

 

A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is.

 

Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails.

 

The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief.

[Assume Nothing]

Public spaces would be anywhere communal - i.e. non-private property where you'd have to share space with others.

 

I see no relevance on why you'd bring up laws - who said anything about enforcing beliefs onto others - whatever that entails?

[Peronix]

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

I said scrutiny, not enforcement. You're allowed to ignore any and all evidence and arguments presented by the opposition and hold fast to your personal beliefs. That is your choice.

[Danqazmlp]

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

I said scrutiny, not enforcement. You're allowed to ignore any and all evidence and argument presented by the opposition and hold fast to your personal beliefs. That is your choice.

 

The problem with religion and belief however, is that criticism and scrutiny come across as identical to enforcement. Enforcing the viewpoint of one side on the other. You may simply be pointing out a single flaw, but to the other side it can come across as enforcing your view.

 

That is one of the reasons these threads always end badly,

[Assume Nothing]

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

I said scrutiny, not enforcement. You're allowed to ignore any and all evidence and arguments presented by the opposition and hold fast to your personal beliefs. That is your choice.

It's either straw-manning or conflation - but either way, it's fallacious logic.

 

If he does choose to ignore any and all evidence/arguments presented by the opposition without presenting any argument of his own, then his belief can be rightly claimed as unfounded.

[Range_This11]

With all this heavy talk about not being able to quantify belief or describe it, I think Stevie Wonder needs to weigh in.

 

"When you believe in things that you don't understand,

Then you suffer,

Superstition ain't the way"

 

[Assume Nothing]

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist.

 

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

 

EDIT:

 

The onus is on you to present the viewpoint coherently. It is not my failure to interpret - rather, your failure to explain, but I digress. I don't see how you're finding it so difficult to explain the concept of belief when it exists in the webster's dictionary.

 

be·lief/biˈlēf/

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonyms:

faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

 

A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is.

 

Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails.

 

The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief.

It's not inexpressible as you claim it is, it is only yourself who has failed to explain it. I'll reiterate: it is not my failure to comprehend or interpret, rather - it is your failure to coherently explain in sufficient detail.

 

It would be an exercise of futility to explain what a favourite colour is - it's of no relevance to this discussion at all. The concept of belief can be expressed, but I won't bore you if you won't care for the response. I'll await your request for elaboration, if you even want it.

[Kimberly]

I struggle to accept the concepts of the Christian god because if its true that the god exists, it must be either unwilling to help, unable to help, or willing and able to help but chooses not to in other words, the problem of evil. Ill note that you make reference to free-will, but I wont bore you with criticisms of the free-will defense unless youd ask for elaboration.

 

That's pretty fair, I think. I don't necessarily agree with that being the trait of 'evil'. Even if I don't personally buy into the "It's God's will" explanation or "He tries to teach us" I don't see these as negligent. More like neutral. I know it's a different debate entirely, but I don't think those with power are automatically expected to help others. It's nice, and hey if they do more power to them. But not doing so doesn't make them evil.

 

But yeah, like you and I both seem to agree, there's lots of contradictions.

 

 

Key difference: they are not influenced by their unbelief. I think you're conflating anti-theism with atheism here.

 

 

Kind of in the sense how fundamentalists (most notably terrorist fundamentalists, though not saying they're the same thing!) claim to be an agent of their true faith, they often wildly contradict the central teachings of that faith. I would consider anti-theists who claim to be atheists akin to those fundamentalists. It's not surprising that people get confused here, because this is such a common occurance. I guess, then, in the same way why some atheists (not those here, but some) confuse fundamentalism with the average person of that faith.

[Jonanananas]

Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist.

 

Why? And what do you deem public?

 

I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society)

 

EDIT:

 

The onus is on you to present the viewpoint coherently. It is not my failure to interpret - rather, your failure to explain, but I digress. I don't see how you're finding it so difficult to explain the concept of belief when it exists in the webster's dictionary.

 

be·lief/biˈlēf/

Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonyms:

faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

 

A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is.

 

Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails.

 

The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief.

It's not inexpressible as you claim it is, it is only yourself who has failed to explain it. I'll reiterate: it is not my failure to comprehend or interpret, rather - it is your failure to coherently explain in sufficient detail.

 

It would be an exercise of futility to explain what a favourite colour is - it's of no relevance to this discussion at all. The concept of belief can be expressed, but I won't bore you if you won't care for the response. I'll await your request for elaboration, if you even want it.

 

I really don't want to get personal here, this is in no way an attack on you as a person. But...we've had this debate before. Several people tried to explain religious belief to you. You did, quite simply, not understand it. At all. If you can't comprehend it from your view, no one is going to be able to explain it to you no matter how hard they try. You personally have no place for a religious belief in your mind. That isn't bad in any way. It just means that you will never grasp the concept of it, and only with real understanding you can judge whether it makes sense or not.

[jasignhagj]

A lot of athiests remind me of the hardcore nationalists who dislike immigrants due to a few bad eggs. They have very little knowledge of them, yet try to judge them and what they should be able to do.

Dat irony.

[Powerfrog]

I see nobody has mentioned that the average atheist knows a lot more about Christianity than the average Christian, as proven by several polls.

 

I think that speaks a lot for the WANTING god to be real and actually BELIEVING that god is real, especially when you're talking about specific gods and not the notion of a god. Also speaks for the "god is a lazy way to avoid finding real answers" theory, in my opinion.

[Assume Nothing]

It's because atheists actually take beliefs seriously, so in order to argue effectively - they learn about Christianity. It's probably important to note that a lot of atheists were former Christians who just found no answers in their previous belief system.

 

It's difficult to get any first hand experience on some of the concepts personally because I've never been fully involved in Christian teachings in the first place - the social pressure to attend church is much less here in the UK.

[champion]

It's because atheists actually take beliefs seriously

hahahahahaha, no. that is not true. some of my friends who are also atheists are extremely ignorant and don't even try question their beliefs to any extent. they just pull the whole "why does god not cure cancer patients" kind of argument and that's enough for them.

 

you also keep talking about how there's some sort of great pressure in America for you to attend church or be Christian, clearly you have never been here for any significant amount of time.