Catholic girl tries to take on Richard Dawkins: [vid]

[Red Storm]

Except "Religion" isn't just a set of Beliefs.

It's also not just "Christianity" as most of ATOT seems to think.

 

[Dumac]

Sure, the girl came off as a doofus, but I don't think the ridicule is necessary.

 

[sandorski]

It's also not just "Christianity" as most of ATOT seems to think.

No one says it is. It, as I'm sure people have pointed out to you before, is the dominant Religion for most of us, many of us used to be Christian, and it is mostly the Religion that attempts to interject itself into our daily lives.

 

[Juddog]

Sure, the girl came off as a doofus, but I don't think the ridicule is necessary.

Theists are getting a taste of their own medicine, after oppressing atheists for several thousand years now they want to play the victim card. Give me a break.

 

[Red Storm]

No one says it is. It, as I'm sure people have pointed out to you before, is the dominant Religion for most of us, many of us used to be Christian, and it is mostly the Religion that attempts to interject itself into our daily lives.

That is true, especially since this is a mostly American tech site.

But back to what you said before, what more is religion other than a set of beliefs?

 

[sandorski]

That is true, especially since this is a mostly American tech site.

But back to what you said before, what more is religion other than a set of beliefs?

There's Faith involved, numerous Rules, numerous Practices, etc.

 

[Dumac]

Theists are getting a taste of their own medicine, after oppressing atheists for several thousand years now they want to play the victim card. Give me a break.

Since when has fighting fire with fire worked?

The whole reason Dawkins is accepted as an athiest 'figurehead' is because he isn't foaming at the mouth when a Christian walks through the door. He is, for the most part, agreeable.

Irrational fury at being oppressed for 'several thousand years' (who knew you were that old) just makes athiests look bad. It is the reason r/athiesm makes me cringe.

 

[Juddog]

That is true, especially since this is a mostly American tech site.

But back to what you said before, what more is religion other than a set of beliefs?

Religion isn't just beliefs; it is:

* A social network that self-reinforces
* A set of beliefs / philosphy
* A set of practices / daily rituals

Atheism isn't a belief of no gods existing, but rather a lack of belief in theism, or "rejection" of the beliefs of various groups of theists.

As the classic phrase goes "atheism is to religion what abstinence is to a sexual position".

 

[Gibsons]

Since when has fighting fire with fire worked?

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

 

[Dumac]

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

Touche...

Maybe I should have said "and eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" or some other equally cliche saying.

 

[Juddog]

Since when has fighting fire with fire worked?

The whole reason Dawkins is accepted as an athiest 'figurehead' is because he isn't foaming at the mouth when a Christian walks through the door. He is, for the most part, agreeable.

Irrational fury at being oppressed for 'several thousand years' (who knew you were that old) just makes athiests look bad. It is the reason r/athiesm makes me cringe.

How is it "fighting fire with fire"? All I did was laugh at theists that complain and act the victim when they are in fact the historical oppressors.

Your statement about "who knew you were that old" is pretty dumb - I never stated anywhere that it was me being repressed, so at this point you're purposefully misconstruing my words.

 

[Red Storm]

Atheism isn't a belief of no gods existing, but rather a lack of belief in theism, or "rejection" of the beliefs of various groups of theists.

To me it seems like exactly that, a belief in no god existing. Rejecting the beliefs of various groups of theists is what all religions do, be it Christianity, Islam, and even atheists. Each rejects the beliefs of the other, so that is not exclusive to atheism at all.

 

[Juddog]

To me it seems like exactly that, a belief in no god existing. Rejecting the beliefs of various groups of theists is what all religions do, be it Christianity, Islam, and even atheists. Each rejects the beliefs of the other, so that is not exclusive to atheism at all.

You're confusing "belief that something does not exist" with "lack of belief that something exists".

 

[Red Storm]

You're confusing "belief that something does not exist" with "lack of belief that something exists".

Those are one and the same. :hmm:

 

[lxskllr]

To me it seems like exactly that, a belief in no god existing. Rejecting the beliefs of various groups of theists is what all religions do, be it Christianity, Islam, and even atheists. Each rejects the beliefs of the other, so that is not exclusive to atheism at all.

The difference is atheism is fact based. I imagine a lot of atheists would rethink their position if some omnipotent guy came here and had a suitable repertoire of tricks. That hasn't happened, so we're left with the evidence at hand. There's zero evidence for a god-like entity, so any god-like entity gets rejected. Religions OTOH reject non-facts with their own non-facts. It's a question of who has the best stories.

 

[Juddog]

Those are one and the same. :hmm:

They are similar, but not the same.

Let me try to find another way to explain it.

Imagine, if you would, that religion was sex. Doggie style represents Islam, the missionary position represents Christianity, and oral represents Hinduism. In this analogy, the lack of having sex altogether would be atheism.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Those are one and the same. :hmm:

Nope. One is active and one is passive.

Very different.

 

[Rudee]

I'm a huge fan of Lawrence Krauss. His youtube lectures are awesome. His books as well.

 

[Red Storm]

The difference is atheism is fact based. I imagine a lot of atheists would rethink their position if some omnipotent guy came here and had a suitable repertoire of tricks. That hasn't happened, so we're left with the evidence at hand. There's zero evidence for a god-like entity, so any god-like entity gets rejected. Religions OTOH reject non-facts with their own non-facts. It's a question of who has the best stories.

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with the "facts or nothing" mentality.

The way I'm seeing it:

Theist: I believe in god.

Atheist: I believe there is no god.

Since we're dealing with an unseen element that would be difficult to physically prove or disprove, definitively stating either is a belief in that statement, not stating a fact.

 

[lxskllr]

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with "facts or nothing" mentality.

The problem is there's no plausible facts coming from the religious camp. An unseen force is untestable, and the only way to come to that conclusion is by making it up. I could say god's a muskrat. You can't prove he isn't, but that doesn't make it any more plausible.

Edit:
Theist - there is a god

atheist - prove it

crickets

Let's say Q from Star Trek comes down, and gives a good performance. Now we have a debate. Is that god? Could be. Then we have to work at (dis)proving it.

 

[Juddog]

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with the "facts or nothing" mentality.

The way I'm seeing it:

Theist: I believe in god.

Atheist: I believe there is no god.

Since we're dealing with an unseen element that would be difficult to physically prove or disprove, definitively stating either is a belief in that statement, not stating a fact.

The problem with your statement is that you're approaching the theist portion as if there was only one major religion.

A better analogy would be this:

Theist #1: I believe in my god
Theist #2: No you're wrong Theist #1, only my god exists
Theist #3: No you're both wrong, only my god exists, and you two are both poopy heads

Atheist: I don't care about any of your gods until one of you can man up and actually show some evidence.

Were you to go strictly by your analogy, then the atheist would have to have a specific belief that no god existed for each of the 3 theists above. The 3 theists are putting energy into their belief systems, the atheist isn't. That's why in the above example, each of the theists are effectively sinking energy into a belief, whereas the atheist is outright rejecting the belief itself, as opposed to believing that there is no god.

Put simply, believing takes mental energy, which includes belief that something positively does not exist, versus non-belief which doesn't take mental energy since it's an outright rejection of a belief until that belief can be reinforced with evidence.

 

[rivan]

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with the "facts or nothing" mentality.

The way I'm seeing it:

Theist: I believe in god.

Atheist: I believe there is no god.

Since we're dealing with an unseen element that would be difficult to physically prove or disprove, definitively stating either is a belief in that statement, not stating a fact.

Except you're leaving off half of each party's statements.

Theist: I believe in god, because the Bible tells me so.
(and more to the point, because my parent's told me so)

Atheist: I believe there is no god, because I have no credible evidence or reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Gibsons]

Hmm, but if god is considered an unseen force, how can you definitely prove or disprove its existence? I would consider Agnostics to be the fact based ones. Since we can't definitively prove or disprove it, their "I'm not sure therefor I don't know" seems to be more in line with the "facts or nothing" mentality.

The way I'm seeing it:

Theist: I believe in god.

Atheist: I believe there is no god.

Since we're dealing with an unseen element that would be difficult to physically prove or disprove, definitively stating either is a belief in that statement, not stating a fact.

I believe there is no invisible pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon. At least I'm pretty sure of it. Is there a name for people who share this "belief?" There's a lot of us, that's for sure.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Btw, has anyone seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

I cant get myself to watch it... Just the look on her face, it tells you everything
Too cringeworthy

 

[sandorski]

Btw, has anyone seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8

I cant get myself to watch it... Just the look on her face, it tells you everything
Too cringeworthy

It is cringe worthy. The woman is creepy as hell.