Export thread

I'll simply state if there's one thing I hate about religion (beyond the fanatics) nothing turns me off from people more than those aggressive atheists. You know... THOSE.

I don't mind those who don't believe in Gods. I mind those who tell you, "Congrats on believing in an imaginary person".

I'm sure we got a few Atheists here... tell me how you feel about those people as well.

I know what you mean.Have a aquintance who likes to talk down on people for believing in a god.
That they are brainwashed.
Me,im not that religious,but i live with the concept that if there is a god,and i have done well,good for me.If not,
thats ok too,because i spent my whole life being a good person.

I can understand the angry athiest sometimes. Lord (lol) knows I've been there. It's just like any other issue for me, really. When I'm sitting there and just thinking about all the things that I feel religion brings with it, it's easy for me to get angry and want to make some big rant about it to wake up the sheeple or whatever.

I never do though, because I feel that anyone who actually uses sheeple as a word should be shot but that's it's own issue.

Sometimes when I see it, I usually just chalk it up to this person having probably just been exposed to their ultra religious aunt or something who went on an opposite side of the spectrum rant.

Soooo much I want to say. I'll put it this way:

If you believe in the "good" things you can accomplish with religion but don't actually believe the supernatural nonsense that goes along with it. More power to you. If you actually believe in 99% of what the Bible/Koran/etc tell you are "fact"? Then you've got more than 99 problems and I feel bad for you son.

Oh and just for giggles:

You do know,one can make a picture with as many brilliant people as your Atheism one,with people that believe in religion.
Being an Atheist dosnt make one "smarter".

Also..there's...there's some problems with that picture.

Hence the "for giggles". If you only took a look at the picture I posted and not the words I wrote, then damn. Dunno what to tell you.

yeah, i know Atheists/Agnostics/Deists like that.

This is why I go "Oh that's nice, could you please go fetch me a roll of toilet paper? I've had an accident."

Stops these dumb non conversations in their tracks most of the time, giving me enough time to flee.

I dislike anyone that tries to force their worldview on another, unprovoked, and with no reason, be it a religious person or an atheist. There are times when such discussion is warranted, perhaps even necessary, but most times it is not.

Shegokigo said:

Hence the "for giggles". If you only took a look at the picture I posted and not the words I wrote, then damn. Dunno what to tell you.

Click to expand...

The only thing I can comment on is the picture. If you want to say if you believe in the Bible/Koran etc, that you feel bad for them--well there's really nothing to argue about. I could say, "No, Shego, you're wrong" or "Yes, Shego, absolutely", neither of which would add anything to the discussion. I just thought the picture had some factual inaccuracies

Which in retrospect, also probably adds nothing to the discussion, so I bid everyone a good day..

Honestly, I think both the crazy religious and the crazy anti religious should be forced into a room together so their intolerance causes their heads to explode.

Saw a convo on FB where a die hard atheist and fundamentalist Christian were arguing back and forth and I wrote "Meanwhile the agnostics sit in the middle and wonder what all the fuss is about."

In the end, whether people believe in a higher power or not doesn't determine if the person is an asshole.

I try not to be the "angry atheist", but it's hard when the religious are holding back our progress as a nation and as a people.

Also, it's really hard for me to not think I'm smarter than anyone that believes in a god or two.

Jay said:

I'll simply state if there's one thing I hate about religion (beyond the fanatics) nothing turns me off from people more than those aggressive atheists. You know... THOSE.

Click to expand...

I call them members of the church of atheism, really peeves them off.

On a semi-related note I once saw people promoting an Atheist support group. I couldn't help but wonder what for. Then I wondered if they met every Sunday morning for about an hour.
Added at: 08:03

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I try not to be the "angry atheist", but it's hard when the religious are holding back our progress as a nation and as a people.

Also, it's really hard for me to not think I'm smarter than anyone that believes in a god or two.

Click to expand...

*Really awesome eyeroll gif that you can't see*

Well, he's honest at least.

fair enough.

FYI, you're exceeding your bandwith in photobucket

am I?

This is actually something that has been on my mind a lot lately. I in general cannot stand people with the attitude of "what I believe in is the only thing that could possibly be right. Everyone who doesn't believe exactly what I believe is not only wrong, they are also stupid. I will go out of my way to make these people aware of this, and they will thank me for doing them the favor of 'saving' them." It seems to me like atheists tend to be among the worst in frequency with this sense of holier-than-thou arrogance (though the absolute worst case of this I know is from a Christian girl, but most people I meet who identify as Christian tend not to be this way), to the point that we're typically labeled with such as a default stereotype.

This creates a problem for me while dating. Spiritual women seem to have an issue with me being atheist when they find out I identify as such even when they themselves aren't the most church-going of people, and atheist women tend to fall into the stereotype too well for me to want to grow an attachment to them.

As a scientist, I would just like to say that although there have been grand leaps in the understanding of the universe there is absolutely 0 progress in answering the fundamental questions of philosophy: why we're here, where we're going, what's the point?

Personally, I'm somewhat agnostic with a twist of Buddhism/Taoism, but I respect religion and faith and their place in humanity. I just can't bring myself to fully embrace the truth as what's already known. Take matter for instance. It's well defined. It can be grasped and touched, smelled and manipulated by our senses. Yet who's to say that how our brains' register what a chair looks and feels like is the true form of the object? Yes, we can quantify and things based on how we see the universe, but to say that's how it truly exists is, well... ignorant and close-minded.

People who believe in higher plains of existence, God, Vishnu, Jesus, whatever... They're not crazy. They're not deluded or brainwashed either. The best way that I've had Christian friends prove their faith in God to me is by asking me to prove that I love my kids. You can't. You can't measure love. You can't quantify it, but it exists.

And think about our very consciousness. It exists as part of who we are, yet we're made of everything that's been part of the universe since the beginning of time itself. We're made of the same stuff as a rock, an ant, or the Sun. Could you collectively say as such that we are an extension of the overall consciousness of the universe? Sure. But then so is that rock, that ant, and the Sun.

The conditions and events that lead to the rise of life on Earth. Do you guys realize how ridiculously absurd the requirements for life on a planet are? Granted, given a timescale of forever, probability does favor pockets of entropy to reduce.

To say that nothing exists in a higher order in the universe as an absolute, as many of these "aggressive atheists" do is really just as much baloney as saying God absolutely exists. The overall conclusion I have is don't be a prick over what someone believes. We all have our quirky worldviews and truths that we cling to to make sense of it all.

No, the thing is - that's wrong. There is right and wrong, there is fact and fiction. Something isn't true or real just because you really really hope it's true.

Also: a support group for atheists makes sense, since they are more hated/misunderstood than homosexuals. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Also: a support group for atheists makes sense, since they are more hated/misunderstood than homosexuals. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

Click to expand...

What.

Anyway, back to the reasonable people talking, as Ravenpoe put it, I dislike anyone forcing their worldview onto another. On another forum I used to go to, you could not have a discussion about religion or culture without a certain two guys showing up. One of them said all the questions or ideas being discussed were work of the devil, and that all non-Christian religions could be summed up as "the devil's lies", being very snide on his high horse. The other would have RAGE fits over anyone even discussing religion because it was "bullshit", and would fill his posts with all caps and exclamation points at even the mention of God.

The funny thing is, these two never acknowledged each other. They just each, in their individual, assholish ways, attacked and put down everyone else.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I try not to be the "angry atheist", but it's hard when the religious are holding back our progress as a nation and as a people.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. That's 100% serious too. No sarcasm.

I like the idea of atheist support groups. Basically, someone who can tell you, "Hey, you know what, it's okay not to believe in any gods." Peer pressure exists regarding religion as well. I could've done with an atheist support group back in school.

As for those "aggressive atheists," I tend to look at who they're arguing with. If it's an equally aggressive religious person then I break out the popcorn. If it's not, then I just sort of mentally shake my head and move on.

Jay said:

I'll simply state if there's one thing I hate about religion (beyond the fanatics) nothing turns me off from people more than those aggressive atheists. You know... THOSE.

I don't mind those who don't believe in Gods. I mind those who tell you, "Congrats on believing in an imaginary person".

I'm sure we got a few Atheists here... tell me how you feel about those people as well.

Click to expand...

I used to really dislike them. I thought they were overbearing assholes who did more harm to the cause than good.

Then I said to a friend in all honesty that I thought that every member of the catholic church should be arrested for conspiracy to commit child rape and that if I ever get the chance I will spit on John Paul the second's grave.

After that I realized I really didn't have any respect for religion and try to avoid the subject while among friends.

Shegokigo said:

Couldn't agree more. That's 100% serious too. No sarcasm.

Click to expand...

That I can also agree with, because that falls under 'forcing your worldview upon others.' Religion should not be a part of politics, other than a right to let people have theirs if they choose, but keep it as a personal matter.

I dislike fanatics on either end of the spectrum. One calls people delusional; the other believes they're getting personal messages from up above.

Still, I have to admit I grow more frustrated with religious fanatics, mostly because you see them more often than the anti-religious fanatics. Hence why I sometimes mess with them.

Mostly, though... Live and let live. Just as long as you don't try to fuck up someone else's shit.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

No, the thing is - that's wrong. There is right and wrong, there is fact and fiction. Something isn't true or real just because you really really hope it's true.

Also: a support group for atheists makes sense, since they are more hated/misunderstood than homosexuals. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

Click to expand...

You're an idiot. Fact and fiction get blurred all the time. 100 years ago, going to the moon was considered fiction. That's my point. Right and wrong are just buzzwords. The truth is humanity can probably never comprehend the vastness of what the real truth is. Stick that Socratic logic in your pipe and smoke it.

There's no logic there, just Westboro Baptist Charlie demonstrating his ironic lack of tolerance for people who don't believe the same things he does.

Einstein said it best:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

Jay said:

I'll simply state if there's one thing I hate about religion (beyond the fanatics) nothing turns me off from people more than those aggressive atheists. You know... THOSE.

Click to expand...

Speaking as an existentialist (meaning I don't really care ether way if there is a God or not), wasn't the reason that aggressive atheists arose in the first place because of aggressive theists demeaning and discriminating against atheists, all the while using their privileged status as a shield to protect them from their human rights violations?

So there's an origin theory for the existence of religion as a byproduct of evolution. Which means that as a species, it's created as a part of the "progress." Sure that part might be "waste product" but the idea makes me giggle all the same when watching people argue about it.

AshburnerX said:

Speaking as an existentialist (meaning I don't really care ether way if there is a God or not), wasn't the reason that aggressive atheists arose in the first place because of aggressive theists demeaning and discriminating against atheists, all the while using their privileged status as a shield to protect them from their human rights violations?

Click to expand...

When I was an atheist, I felt that we as a group should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct if we were going to hold ourselves to a higher standard of science and reasoning.

Then I ran into a group of the aggressive atheists and felt a deja vu harkening back to when my mom used to force me to go to church.

Quotemander Prime said:

When I was an atheist, I felt that we as a group should hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct if we were going to hold ourselves to a higher standard of science and reasoning.

Then I ran into a group of the aggressive atheists and felt a deja vu harkening back to when my mom used to force me to go to church.

Click to expand...

See, layman atheists blindly following scientific principles and theories just because "the smart people propose them" without any critical thought or understanding of the science behind them in my opinion is no different than a devout Catholic listening to the Pope without question.

I would like to make a proposition to Charlie: Why for example do you believe in evolution and how genetics plays a part of it? Do you understand how it works, or is it just because it's SCIENCE! I do, and I'll tell you I'm still open to new truths being discovered.

Honestly folks, for all we know, tomorrow God's booming voice could reign from the heavens and announce the end of days, just as much as an asteroid could ram into the Earth or the Sun stop shining. No truth is an absolute.

I don't like extremists about anything - religion, science, society, whatever. As long as I'm not hurting myself or others, the minute you start telling me your way is the only way, you need to get a firmer grasp on reality.

Emrys said:

I don't like extremists about anything - religion, science, society, whatever. As long as I'm not hurting myself or others, the minute you start telling me your way is the only way, you need to get a firmer grasp on reality.

Click to expand...

Is me not telling you how to live, the only acceptable way for me to live?

Or to turn it around, what gives you the right to tell me how to live?

Emrys said:

Or to turn it around, what gives you the right to tell me how to live?

Click to expand...

What gives you the right to tell him how to live?

Basically, even the act of seeking independence is forcing your will onto others.

Emrys said:

Or to turn it around, what gives you the right to tell me how to live?

Click to expand...

2 parts being right, one part your possible soul being in the line, and all parts 'mericafreedom

You want to know what gives me the right to tell you how to live?


Its the biohazard thong of Power.

Here I thought it would be the bejeweled bra.

Krisken said:

Here I thought it would be the bejeweled bra.

Click to expand...

of Wealth?

Biannoshufu said:

of Wealth?

Click to expand...

of Hypnosis.

Krisken said:

of Hypnosis.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing it.

Biannoshufu said:

I'm not seeing it.

Click to expand...

You're immune to the skank magic it is infused with.

I, for one, welcome our Biohazard Thong of Power overlord and wish to subscribe to the newsletter.

Emrys said:

I, for one, welcome our Biohazard Thong of Power overlord and wish to subscribe to the newsletter.

Click to expand...

Well of course the vagina avatar welcomes a thong of power.

<- are you talking about that?

That's a poppy, doofus.

...immmpppplllllaaaaannnnts of authority!!!!!!!!

Emrys said:

<- are you talking about that?

That's a poppy, doofus.

Click to expand...

A poppy vagina, goober.

Are you seeing vaginas in everything, nutjob?

Not really, snatch.

Don't make me turn you into food for the doomweasels, smeghead.

We both should be more worried about that Grue behind you, crazy pants... AAAAAAaaaaahhhh......

Don't you push your grue-based faith system on me, pinhead.

I'm not your friend, pal!

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong joke...

::gurgle gurgle:: wiener toucher ::gurgle gurgle::

Boobies!

Mathias said:

As a scientist, I would just like to say that although there have been grand leaps in the understanding of the universe there is absolutely 0 progress in answering the fundamental questions of philosophy: why we're here, where we're going, what's the point?

Personally, I'm somewhat agnostic with a twist of Buddhism/Taoism, but I respect religion and faith and their place in humanity. I just can't bring myself to fully embrace the truth as what's already known. Take matter for instance. It's well defined. It can be grasped and touched, smelled and manipulated by our senses. Yet who's to say that how our brains' register what a chair looks and feels like is the true form of the object? Yes, we can quantify and things based on how we see the universe, but to say that's how it truly exists is, well... ignorant and close-minded.

People who believe in higher plains of existence, God, Vishnu, Jesus, whatever... They're not crazy. They're not deluded or brainwashed either. The best way that I've had Christian friends prove their faith in God to me is by asking me to prove that I love my kids. You can't. You can't measure love. You can't quantify it, but it exists.

And think about our very consciousness. It exists as part of who we are, yet we're made of everything that's been part of the universe since the beginning of time itself. We're made of the same stuff as a rock, an ant, or the Sun. Could you collectively say as such that we are an extension of the overall consciousness of the universe? Sure. But then so is that rock, that ant, and the Sun.

The conditions and events that lead to the rise of life on Earth. Do you guys realize how ridiculously absurd the requirements for life on a planet are? Granted, given a timescale of forever, probability does favor pockets of entropy to reduce.

To say that nothing exists in a higher order in the universe as an absolute, as many of these "aggressive atheists" do is really just as much baloney as saying God absolutely exists. The overall conclusion I have is don't be a prick over what someone believes. We all have our quirky worldviews and truths that we cling to to make sense of it all.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said. I'll take the challenge on the love thing from any thumper, though. I can test it and devise a quantification for it.

fade said:

I'll take the challenge on the love thing from any thumper, though. I can test it and devise a quantification for it.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure thats what Heavy Rain was designed to do.

I'm a staunch atheist and I am not fond of the aggressive or passive-aggressive atheists. It is a tricky line to walk, though, and I understand the urge. On the one hand, some theists appear to be a direct threat to lives, freedom, and progress. It is easy to get riled up against those people. On the other hand, it isn't true of all theists. On the final hand, atheists accomplish absolutely nothing through aggressive tactics. There is a science to persuasion, and if one truly wants to persuade people, it should be with a calm demeanor and an understanding of how to approach people about a sensitive topic.

You always persuade me MD. Persuade me to ANGER.

My wife is Atheist and I'm kinda Taoist/Buddhist (not any particular school).

We talk about this stuff Friday cause someone on the radio (forgot what started) but it was interesting conversation.
(Warning: The following is our personal opinion and what we see. We ARE NOT making fun of any religion/belief. it is how we interpret what we see/hear/learn)

She personally don't care what people believe as long it doesn't hurt other people. I agree. I think the base of any religion meant to be good, but people warp it to their own agenda and kinda "divert" from the main purpose.

Of course the discussion move to why people believe in God in the first place and about souls.

Of course that is a LONG train of though which I may post another thread for discussion once I can get more time and maybe NOT at work posting.

Espy said:

You always persuade me MD. Persuade me to ANGER.

Click to expand...

I like you when you're angry!

My favorite arguments with religious people are asking them why their god is anymore valid than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

They have as much valid "proof" of existence either way.

MindDetective said:

I like you when you're angry!

Click to expand...

Well then boy are you in luck!
Added at: 09:55

Shegokigo said:

My favorite arguments with religious people are asking them why their god is anymore valid than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

They have as much valid "proof" of existence either way.

Click to expand...

Whats the point in arguing about being able to prove a thing that is based on faith? Seems like both sides lose there.

Shegokigo said:

My favorite arguments with religious people are asking them why their god is anymore valid than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

They have as much valid "proof" of existence either way.

Click to expand...

This is one of my weird hopes.

Maybe "Jesus" was actually an alien 2000 years ago that look like human and able to perform miracles via science (which we know that advance science can be indistinguishable from magic) and later came back (i.e. 2nd coming) are actual aliens while all these religion shun aliens cause they believe we are the only living organism in this whole universe.

Shegokigo said:

My favorite arguments with religious people are asking them why their god is anymore valid than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

They have as much valid "proof" of existence either way.

Click to expand...

Faith isn't about proof. In fact, if God were a proven factor, religion as we know it would fall apart. God would be dissected, compartmentalized, defined into a rigorous science, scaring at all those who liked the comforting thought that He was a nebulous 'father-like' concept that they could lean on in times of hardship with no effort or ask favours from in times of impropriety. Their god isn't any more valid than FSM; but it's not the validity that drives people into religion. I hate to use this triteness but many people want to feel like they belong to something, a label to stand/hide behind and to have a literal or figurative cross to bear. That's what religion provides to people and that's why no amount of rationalism will kill it.

Adammon said:

Faith isn't about proof.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

"My faith that C'thulu is the one true god and the old gods will one day cleanse this planet is just as valid as your belief that Jesus will save your soul and you will live in Heaven"

Shegokigo said:

Exactly my point.

"My faith that C'thulu is the one true god and the old gods will one day cleanse this planet is just as valid as your belief that Jesus will save your soul and you will live in Heaven"

Click to expand...

Some have to tear down the faith of others in order to reassert their own faith. Personally speaking, I have enough confidence in my own faith to not need church or a gathering of people to build me up. And I don't need to run others down either.

Shegokigo said:

Exactly my point.

"My faith that C'thulu is the one true god and the old gods will one day cleanse this planet is just as valid as your belief that Jesus will save your soul and you will live in Heaven"

Click to expand...

you know. I always wonder how "faith" come to being. I mean look at some of these religions. What if a man TODAY proclaim to be son of God? What if he did walk on water and cure the sick? would the people accept him today? What if the guy was a con artist way back when and use trick to fool people (like psychic today). It is interesting that people still believe in something that is long long time ago, but if someone were to do that today, they would be either lockup/studied or shun by society or with rare occurrence acceptance.

I think that some people need faith cause they think their own lives are not "up to stuff" why can't I be as "beautiful" "powerful" "rich" or "prosperous" as the next guy? maybe it is a God's test? but if I do good, I can have all that in heaven! Sometimes I think religion was created to control the masses in their mediocre lives and be happy with it for the promise of riches and happiness in the afterlife.

Chibibar said:

Sometimes I think religion was created to control the masses in their mediocre lives and be happy with it for the promise of riches and happiness in the afterlife.

Click to expand...

It's been working wonders too.

Shegokigo said:

It's been working wonders too.

Click to expand...

Well yea and some people take advantage of these poor souls and take all their money.

If Jesus came back today and preached the same things he would be ridiculed by those who profess to know him the best and follow his teachings. In fact, he'd probably be in the park at NYC protesting against the 1%. But he's a fucking hippie, so....

Tithing of 10% required? Hell, even Herman Cain is only asking for 9/9/9%.

I'm pretty much agnostic myself, and rather passively so. I profess complete ignorance on the subject of the Great Metaphysical Truths. I think there most likely was some agency of creation, but as to whether that agency continued to be interested in the Created post-creation, I have my doubts. But even apart from that, I acknowledge that there is probably a great deal of human history in which the only things stopping your neighbor (or neighbor-nation) from murdering you in your sleep, raping your wife and taking all your stuff was fear of post-mortem inescapable consequences. Of course, it kinda broke down when conflicting religions rubbed against each other the wrong way.

People like to say that more evil has been perpetrated in the name of organized religion than any other, and I say that's not cause, it's correlation. I think the evil was there, and the religious bent was just the most expedient justification. Even without religion, human beings would flay each other alive for any number of other disagreements. The fallacy is to assume that those who stand in the way of what you consider to be progress would suddenly become unopposed to your worldview if they didn't have religion. There's another pretext to be found. There always is. Man's inhumanity to man is naked, bestial, and one of the perpetual truths - only what we clothe it in changes.

Shegokigo said:

My favorite arguments with religious people are asking them why their god is anymore valid than the Flying Spagetti Monster.

They have as much valid "proof" of existence either way.

Click to expand...

As much proof as an atheist really.

GasBandit said:

People like to say that more evil has been perpetrated in the name of organized religion than any other, and I say that's not cause, it's correlation. I think the evil was there, and the religious bent was just the most expedient justification. Even without religion, human beings would flay each other alive for any number of other disagreements. The fallacy is to assume that those who stand in the way of what you consider to be progress would suddenly become unopposed to your worldview if they didn't have religion. There's another pretext to be found. There always is. Man's inhumanity to man is naked, bestial, and one of the perpetual truths - only what we clothe it in changes.

Click to expand...

I don't know about quantitatively more or less than other evils, but I would say that it has and does happen. That is, beliefs instigate the behavior rather than justify it afterwards.

Covar said:

As much proof as an atheist really.

Click to expand...

Except all the scientific proof that there is for evolution vs Adam & Eve or anythingelse that was created and proven by Science instead of the wave of a magic hand.

So yeah, about the same.

MindDetective said:

I don't know about quantitatively more or less than other evils, but I would say that it has and does happen. That is, beliefs instigate the behavior rather than justify it afterwards.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure if they didn't have that particular belief, they'd have another one to get inquisitorial about, is where I was going with that.
Added at: 12:23

Shegokigo said:

Except all the scientific proof that there is for evolution vs Adam & Eve or anythingelse that was created and proven by Science instead of the wave of a magic hand.

So yeah, about the same.

Click to expand...

Atheism isn't about disbelief in just the christian god - it's about all gods, including the "uninterested creator" of deists. That's the gap that can't be bridged thus far.

Shegokigo said:

Except all the scientific proof that there is for evolution vs Adam & Eve or anythingelse that was created and proven by Science instead of the wave of a magic hand.

So yeah, about the same.

Click to expand...

Proof of evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of a higher power any more than the stories told in the Bible are proof of existence. Keep in mind an absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Atheism like Theism is a belief, and by the very nature of Theism that is all either of them can be.

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it's evidence against what some religious swear by.

Absence of proof will always be proof of absence. That's the way it works, that's why it's called proof. It may exist, but will not be real to us without proof. Until then it's just faith, and faith is as strong as it's foundation. Which is based on belief. So I repeat, a belief in any religion is just as valid as a belief in anything, regardless of how inane or idiotic it could be "LolC'ThuluReligion", because of the "proof" of belief.

whither there is a god or not is irrelevant to me. I am a "functional atheist" in that whither it is there or not does not bother me in the least. It's a big universe out there and as a Environmental Scientist I want to know more no matter what its origin. if god shows up I would wave hello and continue my work.

people who push their beliefs on anyone are assholes. I know from my studies that evolution is real. but others are not ready to believe it. that's fine and I am happy for them to be as secure in their beliefs as I am in mine.

Shegokigo said:

Absence of proof will always be proof of absence.

Click to expand...

What? No, very much no.

Except belief in proven Scientific fact vs people who look at fact and say it's not because their belief says it's not is just freakin hilarious. "lolcreationismlol"

Shegokigo said:

Except belief in proven Scientific fact vs people who look at fact and say it's not because their belief says it's not is just freakin hilarious. "lolcreationismlol"

Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't get young earth creationism at all. An intelligent designer I can kind of understand the philosophy behind it. Panspermia I find fascinating.

Adammon said:

To be honest, I don't get young earth creationism at all. An intelligent designer I can kind of understand the philosophy behind it. Panspermia I find fascinating.

Click to expand...

Don't look at me. I'm Catholic.

One of my friend (He is Christian) said that God exist and create life and let evolution takes its course (all part of the plan) I can roll with that. I am NO WHERE near the scientific mind we have on the forum much less the Greats in this world past or present, but I think the human race haven't been able to prove the origin of life scientifically, yet. There is so much mystery on this planet and YEARS of it to discover. We continue discovering and learning each days/months/years.

But to me, it shouldn't shake anyone's faith. I know that some religion oppose evolution on all level (not sure why really) I mean, is it hard to believe that God or gods jump start life a certain way and just let it run its course? (i.e. start with the whole living soup theory and just evolve from there?)
Added at: 12:59

Adammon said:

To be honest, I don't get young earth creationism at all. An intelligent designer I can kind of understand the philosophy behind it. Panspermia I find fascinating.

Click to expand...

I don't understand them either. Even my parent's belief thinks the human race is only like 60,000 years old. Some religion believe that earth is only 6000 years old. That baffles me compare what we discover so far.

I don't think carbon dating is THAT off (i.e. bones that are millions of years old)

Shegokigo said:

Absence of proof will always be proof of absence.

Click to expand...

Gin Rummy disagrees.

Chibibar said:

One of my friend (He is Christian) said that God exist and create life and let evolution takes its course (all part of the plan) I can roll with that. I am NO WHERE near the scientific mind we have on the forum much less the Greats in this world past or present, but I think the human race haven't been able to prove the origin of life scientifically, yet. There is so much mystery on this planet and YEARS of it to discover. We continue discovering and learning each days/months/years.

But to me, it shouldn't shake anyone's faith. I know that some religion oppose evolution on all level (not sure why really) I mean, is it hard to believe that God or gods jump start life a certain way and just let it run its course? (i.e. start with the whole living soup theory and just evolve from there?)
Added at: 12:59

I don't understand them either. Even my parent's belief thinks the human race is only like 60,000 years old. Some religion believe that earth is only 6000 years old. That baffles me compare what we discover so far.

I don't think carbon dating is THAT off (i.e. bones that are millions of years old)

Click to expand...

some protestant denominations believe the the Bible is the absolute word of God handed down directly to the people that wrote it. I've even had conversations with people who believe that it's a single work (yea, I really don't get this one, still not the strangest I've heard. That would be "Catholics aren't Christians" I kid you not, but I digress). I'm not even sure where to start when I hear that.

When I was a professor teaching Geology 101, I had to get into this debate at least 1-2 times a semester. Especially in Louisiana.

I always liked Phineas's beliefs in A Separate Peace, which were basically that he was pretty sure there wasn't one, but he'd keep up the ceremony just in case. If God was benevolent, he ought to be cool with that.

GasBandit said:

I'm pretty sure if they didn't have that particular belief, they'd have another one to get inquisitorial about, is where I was going with that.

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying the inquisition, actually. In fact, I tend to think of more recent examples of acts of violence or resistance to technological or scientific pursuits in the name of religious views.

Because it is relevant:

really MD? picture-meme? You? That's....inelegant.

MindDetective said:

I wasn't implying the inquisition, actually. In fact, I tend to think of more recent examples of acts of violence or resistance to technological or scientific pursuits in the name of religious views.

Because it is relevant:

Click to expand...

Aaand nyoinked.

I was really going for a broader perspective though, rather than just specifically the inquisition or the opposition to abortion, cloning, or stem cell research. My assertion is that, if we could magically edit out the christian from the militant, they'd still be a militant, and another noun would serve just as well.

That's not relevant Gas. Subway fired and Quiznos exploded. That fight is long over.

Shegokigo said:

That's not relevant Gas. Subway fired and Quiznos exploded. That fight is long over.

Click to expand...

...Or so they would have you believe.

No no, there's actual proof. You don't need belief for this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/quiznos-bankruptcy_n_905864.html

More appropriately...

Shegokigo said:

No no, there's actual proof. You don't need belief for this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/quiznos-bankruptcy_n_905864.html

Click to expand...

That's just their public facade. The creeping Quiznosian Menace continues to squelch its way across the cobblestones tread by decent folk even to this day. In the shadows, its unsightly, unbearable, pustular sauces continue to claim the sanity of those who just wanted a damn sandwich that didn't taste like it'd been carried all day in a plumber's buttcrack. You may forget them for now, little by little. But once you've dismissed them entirely out of your mind...



They'll get you.

GasBandit said:

When are people going to learn not to use photobucket? IMGUR!

Click to expand...

Fixed

Adammon said:

More appropriately...

Click to expand...

Isn't "militant Shegokigo" redundant?

Or just upload the damned thing here.

Shegokigo said:

No no, there's actual proof. You don't need belief for this one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/quiznos-bankruptcy_n_905864.html

Click to expand...

You're an odd person. Do you think bankruptcy means that they've lost? They've still got over 2,500 locations (about half what they had at their height).

Keep in mind that subway had over 22,000 locations in the US in 2009 - so even at their height quiznos was only 1/4 what subway was.

So, I guess you're saying since they only have 10% the number of locations then they've lost?

They are currently restructuring, and are purported to be nearing an agreement: http://www.restfinance.com/content/story.php?article=00673

They didn't go belly up, or close up shop. Many of their franchisees did close their businesses, but that's almost a separate issue.

Reports seem to suggest that the corporate headquarters tried doing some interesting things with franchisee pricing, which lead the franchisees to form an association in order to combat what they felt were unfair requirements (such as all food must be purchased from the corporation, rather than sourced locally).

The argument as to which is better is still an open discussion - that has little to do with their ability to remain profitable, but personal tastes.

Biannoshufu said:

really MD? picture-meme? You? That's....inelegant.

Click to expand...

I am shamed. /hang head

Militant Atheist needs a Hammer and Sickle and the millions dead in gulags, pogroms, and starvation...

sixpackshaker said:

Militant Atheist needs a Hammer and Sickle and the millions dead in gulags, pogroms, and starvation...

Click to expand...

A bit out-dated, but true. Also, not all faiths were persecuted in that situation. It wasn't entirely a religious war.

MindDetective said:

I am shamed. /hang head

Click to expand...

Don't listen to the philistine, brother. They just jelly.

MindDetective said:

A bit out-dated, but true. Also, not all faiths were persecuted in that situation. It wasn't entirely a religious war.

Click to expand...

It was not a religious war, but the Atheist Utopia was just thinning the herd across the board. They did not care if you were a true believer (fellow traveler) or not.

I get a little upset that Internet Atheists act as though no Atheist in history ever harmed a hair on another person's head.

sixpackshaker said:

It was not a religious war, but the Atheist Utopia was just thinning the herd across the board. They did not care if you were a true believer (fellow traveler) or not.

I get a little upset that Internet Atheists act as though no Atheist in history ever harmed a hair on another person's head.

Click to expand...

Using those atheistic beliefs as justification, though? I don't think anyone is claiming that atheists cannot be bad people.

Shegokigo said:

Except all the scientific proof that there is for evolution vs Adam & Eve or anythingelse that was created and proven by Science instead of the wave of a magic hand.

So yeah, about the same.

Click to expand...

Yeah, except for exactly what I stated earlier. Explain to me in full detail how evolution works, please. I want genetic systems all the way to ecosystems. If you haven't critically questioned the validity for evolution why are you a proponent of it? Really if you can't explain it to me you're just as big a sheep as the people who believe in Adam and Eve. The essence of truth to me is understanding and questioning ideas behind it, and rationalizing it to what I've constructed as a representation of what it should be based on what I've learned. That's why I do what I do.

Atheists that go "lolreligion" without understanding the details of the science and scientific proof they're supporting are pretty much putting their "faith" in people that are "smarter" than they are.

Shego's example is pretty much what Jay was talking about though. While there are plenty of exceptions, as an example, a Jewish person is less likely to catch flack from an atheist than a Christian person, even if both were mentioning their faith in a calm, non-judgmental manner. Atheists say they don't believe all religions/gods/etc, but many are really just anti-Christian, and that's more about cultural history, at which point, they sacrifice their ideals. It's a lot like Christians who never put Christ to practice. It comes down to atheism vs Christianity rather than atheism vs religion. Which I suppose is better than having science vs religion, because in both cases there's a fervency to have faith, which is what Chaz is trying to point out--in general, people accept or reject what they hear without critically thinking about it/investigating it for themselves.

I think Dostoevsky had the right idea in "Demons" when he suggested that it's easier to convert an atheist than an agnostic, because they're already religious in their own way.

Though Dostoevsky also suggested that if what the Bible says happened to Christ were to happen again as with Chibi's example (miracles, preaching, et cetera) the status quo would kill him again.

Mathias said:

Yeah, except for exactly what I stated earlier. Explain to me in full detail how evolution works, please. I want genetic systems all the way to ecosystems. If you haven't critically questioned the validity for evolution why are you a proponent of it? Really if you can't explain it to me you're just as big a sheep as the people who believe in Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

I know this wasn't toward me.

I don't anyone can Mathias (which is probably your point) but I believe in time, scientist may figure out someday. I believe that evolution is a stronger theory than Adam & Eve because scientist have made some observation over several generation of different species and human from evidence in the past. While currently scientist can't link it all the way to the beginning (i.e. I call it Soup theory) or origin of life, but at least a tie between ape and man (of course we are still missing the "missing link") but there are some evidence of early man and today man from skeletal structure (which show evolution of man from 10,000 years ago to today - note I think there are much older skeletons but I am too lazy to look it all up right now)

Now of course all this is easier to believe evolution with what we have today vs a "magic waving of the hand" suddenly two people were created. A man and a woman which propagate the earth (which btw, there are some Biblical theory on that as in "super gene" and possible more than 1 couple but talk about incest)

Mathias said:

Yeah, except for exactly what I stated earlier. Explain to me in full detail how evolution works, please. I want genetic systems all the way to ecosystems. If you haven't critically questioned the validity for evolution why are you a proponent of it? Really if you can't explain it to me you're just as big a sheep as the people who believe in Adam and Eve. The essence of truth to me is understanding and questioning ideas behind it, and rationalizing it to what I've constructed as a representation of what it should be based on what I've learned. That's why I do what I do.

Click to expand...

While I agree that understanding and questioning are good things, I don't need to do this because we have people who do this for us. That doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me a customer. I can understand and question science, and trust you to do the work for me that needs to be done. We could get all philosophical and question science itself as a belief, because what is it that says that repeatability and testability are inherently any better?

fade said:

While I agree that understanding and questioning are good things, I don't need to do this because we have people who do this for us. That doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me a customer. I can understand and question science, and trust you to do the work for me that needs to be done. We could get all philosophical and question science itself as a belief, because what is it that says that repeatability and testability are inherently any better?

Click to expand...

Fade, everyone has to either individually replicate all the important research up until this point in history or at least read the original sources. But really, only sheep read the articles.
Added at: 17:02
Snark aside, Mathias is correct to a point, in that we should always hold onto a grain of skepticism. It is a healthy approach to the things that we believe in and which could be utterly, completely wrong, despite our fervent beliefs.

I think Mathias's point was that we have hold faith in scientists because science has become so exacting, it's almost impossible for a layman to understand all of it. I have to trust that biologists have done the research and have come to the right conclusions because I don't have the resources available to figure it out myself. I could, given the opportunity, but the barriers to entry for modern science are so high that we're really counting on 'those in the know' to communicate those findings out to us, explain what they mean, and we hold in public trust the fact that they are telling us the truth.

Yeah, science literacy IS pretty terrible in our country (and yours too, I imagine). Oh, wait, that wasn't your intended point.

MindDetective said:

Yeah, science literacy IS pretty terrible in our country (and yours too, I imagine). Oh, wait, that wasn't your intended point.

Click to expand...

Up here in Canada, we can't even decide which language to speak, let alone science-ific...things.

Adammon said:

Up here in Canada, we can't even decide which language to speak, let alone science-ific...things.

Click to expand...

At least you have the metric system.

MindDetective said:

At least you have the metric system.

Click to expand...

The metric system is pretty standard in scientific communities but in day to day use, pounds and miles are still common. Very rare to hear someone refer to their weight in kg for example.

There are two issues here.

Science - Hypothesis -> test - results/compare -> retest -> results/compare and other people can do the same thing.
We are creature who depend on our senses. Science explains these things to us and can be proven (to a point)

Faith - this is just is. you believe or you don't. There is no test or retest. Each person's faith differ from another. It is not like Science where two scientist can do the same test and get same result. Testing two people' faith may get different results. It is just are.

It is comparing two different thing that could be the same thing (IMO) Science cover - see, hear, touch, taste, smell while Faith cover what you feel and believe.

Adammon said:

Up here in Canada, we can't even decide which language to speak, let alone science-ific...things.

Click to expand...

Oh you silly canuckistans. The US doesn't have that problem because we don't have any national language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States

Adammon said:

The metric system is pretty standard in scientific communities but in day to day use, pounds and miles are still common. Very rare to hear someone refer to their weight in kg for example.

Click to expand...

When I lived in Australia they used the metric system pretty casually. Also, I've driven in Canada and your road signs are in km!

MindDetective said:

When I lived in Australia they used the metric system pretty casually. Also, I've driven in Canada and your road signs are in km!

Click to expand...

"Legally" we've adopted the metric system. Everything official (driver's licenses, speed limits, etc.) lists our weights, heights, speeds, etc in metric, but day to day, everyone talks in standard... Although since most people my age started driving with km, that is one thing that's more and more only-metric now, however my parents still talk about mph and how many miles away something is.

What really fucked me over was driving in Scotland where not only are you on the wrong side of the road, the signs are all in miles! It's like they picked the worst of both worlds.

The science behind the oil industry is usually in imperial units, which is just weird. Especially since in school they absolutely drilled in the metric system.

fade said:

The science behind the oil industry is usually in imperial units, which is just weird. Especially since in school they absolutely drilled in the metric system.

Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be a pun, or are you just digging for geology jokes?

So has anybody posted the star wars "Scientism" comics yet?

Hate to resurrect a week-old discussion, but I just saw it...

Put simply, science and religion answer two different questions about origins. Science attempts to answer "How?", and relgion, in its nature a philosophy, attempts to answer "Why?" Conflict tends to arise when one side attempts to answer the other's question. In themselves, however, science and religion don't really conflict each other.

Aggressive atheists annoy because they think to even bother asking "Why?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor. Aggressive theists annoy because they think to even bother asking "How?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor.

Piotyr said:

Hate to resurrect a week-old discussion, but I just saw it...

Put simply, science and religion answer two different questions about origins. Science attempts to answer "How?", and relgion, in its nature a philosophy, attempts to answer "Why?" Conflict tends to arise when one side attempts to answer the other's question. In themselves, however, science and religion don't really conflict each other.

Aggressive atheists annoy because they think to even bother asking "Why?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor. Aggressive theists annoy because they think to even bother asking "How?" is a pointless and fruitless endeavor.

Click to expand...

Good post but you jumped the track a bit at the end. An atheist doesn't worship science, so it isn't only about the how? for them. They do often answer the question why? and it is usually with the answer "random chance". Additionally, I think many atheists get aggressive because theists attempt to answer how? in a religious manner.

MindDetective said:

Good post but you jumped the track a bit at the end. An atheist doesn't worship science, so it isn't only about the how? for them. They do often answer the question why? and it is usually with the answer "random chance". Additionally, I think many atheists get aggressive because theists attempt to answer how? in a religious manner.

Click to expand...

True, but random chance (or insignificant factors) is still rather dismissive of the why? discussion as a whole.

I agree that aggression also tends to incite aggression (and thus much pointless bickering and pointed fighting), which maybe I didn't emphasize enough in my initial post.

I also don't want to come off as dismissive of either "side" (if there are in fact definable sides) of this debate, as all have value to offer.

I'm going to just leave this here:

Piotyr said:

True, but random chance (or insignificant factors) is still rather dismissive of the why? discussion as a whole.

I agree that aggression also tends to incite aggression (and thus much pointless bickering and pointed fighting), which maybe I didn't emphasize enough in my initial post.

I also don't want to come off as dismissive of either "side" (if there are in fact definable sides) of this debate, as all have value to offer.

Click to expand...

I wish I could remember his name, but I heard a speech on NPR by a scientist at NASA and he said that he feels no conflict between his faith and his work, that in his view (paraphrased, I can't remember the exact wording) "science is merely revealing God's creation to us". I love that concept and as a Christian it helps bolster why I don't feel threatened by things like the theory of evolution, etc.

Piotyr said:

True, but random chance (or insignificant factors) is still rather dismissive of the why? discussion as a whole.

I agree that aggression also tends to incite aggression (and thus much pointless bickering and pointed fighting), which maybe I didn't emphasize enough in my initial post.

I also don't want to come off as dismissive of either "side" (if there are in fact definable sides) of this debate, as all have value to offer.

Click to expand...

I was summarizing the point of view, but I didn't intend to sound dismissive and I don't think it is a dismissive stance. It is a valid answer to the Why question. I think it should be accepted as a real possibility that the answer to Why is, "It was an accident."