How do you view atheists?

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Just like there may well be a smart religious person, but there is no proof yet that one exists

Have you ever been in a university? There are plenty of people there that hold PhDs and other advanced degrees and also believe in God.

Yep, they are called hypocrites if they are in the sciences. I have exceedingly vast amounts of experience in academic setttings and it is mostly the old codgers holding these hypocritical views. I say hypocritical because from one viewpoint all evidence which is contrary to current belief is ignored. In the other one vehemently searches for all evidence which is contrary to current information. How can one search for contradictory evidence only to ignore it without being a hypocrite?

Again, the hypocritical assumption there is no evidence supporting Christianity or just a simple belief in a creator. An atheist or a person of faith may be biased in their searches for evidences, and each is doing themselves a huge disservice (not to mention violating the very basis of a good scientific method) when testing their hypothesis that there either is or is not a God.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: skace
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

NEVER quote wiki as a valid source. Hell, never quote it as a source in general.

Please, it's good enough for a forum debate. Is there something wrong with the definition on Wiki?

Regardless of how "wrong" or "right" the definition from wiki is, the fact that it is an open encyclopedia automatically disqualifies it from being a reputable source to quote from.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: skace
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

NEVER quote wiki as a valid source. Hell, never quote it as a source in general.

Please, it's good enough for a forum debate. Is there something wrong with the definition on Wiki?

Regardless of how "wrong" or "right" the definition from wiki is, the fact that it is an open encyclopedia automatically disqualifies it from being a reputable source to quote from.

Text

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: timosyy
I believe Athiesm is a belief... but that athiests believe they know there is no God.

/shrug

Regarding athiests themselves, well... some of my best friends are athiests. It's kind of depressing to listen to them talk, sometimes. In the end, Athiesm is a very strong belief, and not something to be taken lightly or without much thought (as any other belief)- because when you die, you better be DAMN sure there is nothing else.

Youre a nit wit. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. Do you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you "believe" that you will fall to the earth if you step off the roof of a VERY tall building?

Wait, what? About the sun -- we all believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Just because it's risen every day for the past xx thousand (billion even) years, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: artikk

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: skace
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

NEVER quote wiki as a valid source. Hell, never quote it as a source in general.

Please, it's good enough for a forum debate. Is there something wrong with the definition on Wiki?

Regardless of how "wrong" or "right" the definition from wiki is, the fact that it is an open encyclopedia automatically disqualifies it from being a reputable source to quote from.

Text

Like I said, regardless of how "wrong" or "right" or how accurate it is against Britannica (yes, I've read that link before), WIKI is right out as a valid, reputable, quotable source.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Atheists do not believe that there are any supernatural powers, forces, or deities.
I'm going to leave it at that.

That doesn't mean "we are certain that there is no god"
It means "We have no evidence supporting the existance of a god, therefore we are dismissing the notion of a god."

It doesn't mean we think we "know" that there isn't a god and that we are somehow better and smarter than everybody else. People who think that aren't just atheists, they are assholes. It means that we have no reason to believe in one so we simply don't believe in one. We place the burden of proof on the ones who claim that there is a god. And thus far, nobody has ever come up with proof.

Don't mix up your assholes and atheists, while many are both, they are different.

I would only offer up one more correction. There is evidence out there supporting the existence of a God unless you're just biased against considering that evidence. There is just not enough evidence for most atheists or agnostics to convince them there is a God. Of course, short of God coming down in human form, having dinner with an atheist, slaying someone in the middle of the restaurant, and then resurrecting them would there be enough evidence to convince an atheist that there is a God.

I've heard a lot of people claim that there is evidence. I've looked for it, and I've never seen any. I try not to have too strong of a bias, but I'm sure I have one as everyone does. The example you provided would be a proof enough for me
That being said, you can't measure the immesurable, you can't see the unseeable, you can't detect the undetectable. So, I doubt there will ever be any "proof" of any sort of deity ever, so I'll just continue on my merry way.

 

[thecrecarc]

atheisit is a person who KNOWS there is no god. thus, they are idiots, just like thesists.

a agnostic atheisit is a person who BELIVES there is no god, is isnt 100% sure. thats what i am

if you agnostic, ur arent sure if there is a god or not

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Just like there may well be a smart religious person, but there is no proof yet that one exists

Have you ever been in a university? There are plenty of people there that hold PhDs and other advanced degrees and also believe in God.

Yep, they are called hypocrites if they are in the sciences. I have exceedingly vast amounts of experience in academic setttings and it is mostly the old codgers holding these hypocritical views. I say hypocritical because from one viewpoint all evidence which is contrary to current belief is ignored. In the other one vehemently searches for all evidence which is contrary to current information. How can one search for contradictory evidence only to ignore it without being a hypocrite?

Again, the hypocritical assumption there is no evidence supporting Christianity or just a simple belief in a creator. An atheist or a person of faith may be biased in their searches for evidences, and each is doing themselves a huge disservice (not to mention violating the very basis of a good scientific method) when testing their hypothesis that there either is or is not a God.

Youre the hypocrite showing extreme bias here buddy. "Evidence" you attain through belief or the belief of others (your pastor, for example) is NOT scientific evidence. Clearly you dont even understand the basic tenets of the scientific method. If you do, write a quick methods statement testing the hypothesis that god exists. Also, if you did understand the scientific method you would know that you can not prove that something does not exist. Im done with you god-boy. Go back to your pastor and leave science up to scientists.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: timosyy
I believe Athiesm is a belief... but that athiests believe they know there is no God.

/shrug

Regarding athiests themselves, well... some of my best friends are athiests. It's kind of depressing to listen to them talk, sometimes. In the end, Athiesm is a very strong belief, and not something to be taken lightly or without much thought (as any other belief)- because when you die, you better be DAMN sure there is nothing else.

Youre a nit wit. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. Do you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you "believe" that you will fall to the earth if you step off the roof of a VERY tall building?

Do you believe that everything came from nothing for no reason at all? Do you believe that if you died right now it would just be like an eternal sleep with nothing to look forward to? Atheism has a very strong set of beliefs.

 

[JackBurton]

They are the Devil.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: timosyy
I believe Athiesm is a belief... but that athiests believe they know there is no God.

/shrug

Regarding athiests themselves, well... some of my best friends are athiests. It's kind of depressing to listen to them talk, sometimes. In the end, Athiesm is a very strong belief, and not something to be taken lightly or without much thought (as any other belief)- because when you die, you better be DAMN sure there is nothing else.

Youre a nit wit. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. Do you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you "believe" that you will fall to the earth if you step off the roof of a VERY tall building?

Wait, what? About the sun -- we all believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Just because it's risen every day for the past xx thousand (billion even) years, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow.

I dont have to "believe" that the sun will rise, i know it will. Do you even understand the difference between belief and knowledge? Our best knowledge says the sun will rise for thousands of billions of years to come, thus we dont believe it will we know it will. Do you believe the sun will NOT rise tomorrow. Care to wager a bet?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: timosyy
I believe Athiesm is a belief... but that athiests believe they know there is no God.

/shrug

Regarding athiests themselves, well... some of my best friends are athiests. It's kind of depressing to listen to them talk, sometimes. In the end, Athiesm is a very strong belief, and not something to be taken lightly or without much thought (as any other belief)- because when you die, you better be DAMN sure there is nothing else.

Youre a nit wit. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. Do you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you "believe" that you will fall to the earth if you step off the roof of a VERY tall building?

Do you believe that everything came from nothing for no reason at all? Do you believe that if you died right now it would just be like an eternal sleep with nothing to look forward to? Atheism has a very strong set of beliefs.

Again, your ignorance knows no bounds. Im done with you god-boy.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Like I said, regardless of how "wrong" or "right" or how accurate it is against Britannica (yes, I've read that link before), WIKI is right out as a valid, reputable, quotable source.

Chamber I'm not writing my thesis here. I quickly quoted Wiki to show simply why there are multiple understandings of what an athiest is. The article completely explains it all indepth too. Take a chance and read it. Or go do the research yourself, you will most likely end up at the same point.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: OVERKILL
If someone chooses to label themselves
an athiest, then wonderful.
Everyone
has the right to be whoever they want and label themselves whatever they want as well.

Too many people interfere with other people's lives.



Bottom line is this:
mind your own business and live your own life.

This would be fine if "atheists" left others alone.

True athiests have no need to convince others of their beliefs. It's the militant ones that tell you you are not allow to believe in God that ruin this whole idea of "non-interference".

Let's see...why do we constantly hear about abortion and laws trying to prevent it? Christianity. Why do we constantly hear about gay marriage and laws trying to prevent it? Christianity. Why does Bush and Co. constantly say God is on our side, and not the "enemies"? Chrisitianity. Hell, abortion and gay marriage should never, EVER come up for a vote or concern anyone other than the parties involved, yet they are hot button topics everywhere you go.

I'm not disagreeing with you about militant athiests...they're bad. But militant religious people are worse. They're the ones in office and running things into the ground.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Another unnecessary sh!tty religion thread.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Golgatha

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Just like there may well be a smart religious person, but there is no proof yet that one exists

Have you ever been in a university? There are plenty of people there that hold PhDs and other advanced degrees and also believe in God.

Yep, they are called hypocrites if they are in the sciences. I have exceedingly vast amounts of experience in academic setttings and it is mostly the old codgers holding these hypocritical views. I say hypocritical because from one viewpoint all evidence which is contrary to current belief is ignored. In the other one vehemently searches for all evidence which is contrary to current information. How can one search for contradictory evidence only to ignore it without being a hypocrite?

Again, the hypocritical assumption there is no evidence supporting Christianity or just a simple belief in a creator. An atheist or a person of faith may be biased in their searches for evidences, and each is doing themselves a huge disservice (not to mention violating the very basis of a good scientific method) when testing their hypothesis that there either is or is not a God.

Youre the hypocrite showing extreme bias here buddy. "Evidence" you attain through belief or the belief of others (your pastor, for example) is NOT scientific evidence. Clearly you dont even understand the basic tenets of the scientific method. If you do, write a quick methods statement testing the hypothesis that god exists. Also, if you did understand the scientific method you would know that you can not prove that something does not exist. Im done with you god-boy. Go back to your pastor and leave science up to scientists.

I conceed that I can never prove absolutely that God does exist, but you also can't prove God doesn't exist. I never mentioned using a Pastor as evidence either, so I'm a bit confused where you pulled that comment from? Thanks for the insults too (hint: those tend to help one's opposition in a debate). Please explain how I don't understand the basic tenets of the scientific method.

1) Hypothesis: There is a God.
2) I prove this statement true or false accepting evidence available both for and against this statement.
3) I make a conclusion.

Did I miss something there? I think maybe you're confused that I'm trying to formulate a theory or law using the scientific method? The law of God's existence perhaps?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: timosyy
I believe Athiesm is a belief... but that athiests believe they know there is no God.

/shrug

Regarding athiests themselves, well... some of my best friends are athiests. It's kind of depressing to listen to them talk, sometimes. In the end, Athiesm is a very strong belief, and not something to be taken lightly or without much thought (as any other belief)- because when you die, you better be DAMN sure there is nothing else.

Youre a nit wit. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. Do you "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you "believe" that you will fall to the earth if you step off the roof of a VERY tall building?

Wait, what? About the sun -- we all believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Just because it's risen every day for the past xx thousand (billion even) years, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow.

I dont have to "believe" that the sun will rise, i know it will. Do you even understand the difference between belief and knowledge? Our best knowledge says the sun will rise for thousands of billions of years to come, thus we dont believe it will we know it will. Do you believe the sun will NOT rise tomorrow. Care to wager a bet?

No, because I believe it will rise tomorrow.

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: chambersc
Like I said, regardless of how "wrong" or "right" or how accurate it is against Britannica (yes, I've read that link before), WIKI is right out as a valid, reputable, quotable source.

Chamber I'm not writing my thesis here. I quickly quoted Wiki to show simply why there are multiple understandings of what an athiest is. The article completely explains it all indepth too. Take a chance and read it. Or go do the research yourself, you will most likely end up at the same point.

I'm not arguing the context of your post -- I concede that the definition you pulled from wiki is probably valid.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc
atheisit is a person who KNOWS there is no god. thus, they are idiots, just like thesists.

a agnostic atheisit is a person who BELIVES there is no god, is isnt 100% sure. thats what i am

if you agnostic, ur arent sure if there is a god or not

Please work on your spelling and grammar before you move on to definitions.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Amused
Atheist: Someone who denies the existence of a god.
http://www.answers.com/atheist&r=67

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
http://www.answers.com/agnostic

Atheism is a logically untenable position.

One cannot know either way, therefore agnosticism/neutrality is the only logical position to hold.

Are beliefs rational and/or logical? I happen to believe that they aren't.

A "belief" with no valid proof to support it is irrational and better described as "faith." A belief with evidence to support it is perfectly logical and rational.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Poulsonator

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: OVERKILL
If someone chooses to label themselves
an athiest, then wonderful.
Everyone
has the right to be whoever they want and label themselves whatever they want as well.

Too many people interfere with other people's lives.



Bottom line is this:
mind your own business and live your own life.

This would be fine if "atheists" left others alone.

True athiests have no need to convince others of their beliefs. It's the militant ones that tell you you are not allow to believe in God that ruin this whole idea of "non-interference".

Let's see...why do we constantly hear about abortion and laws trying to prevent it? Christianity. Why do we constantly hear about gay marriage and laws trying to prevent it? Christianity. Why does Bush and Co. constantly say God is on our side, and not the "enemies"? Chrisitianity. Hell, abortion and gay marriage should never, EVER come up for a vote or concern anyone other than the parties involved, yet they are hot button topics everywhere you go.

I'm not disagreeing with you about militant athiests...they're bad. But militant religious people are worse. They're the ones in office and running things into the ground.

All laws are based on morality judgements. Why is it illegal to kill, steal, etc.? Because someone approved a law based on the moral judgement that killing or stealing from someone else is morally wrong. The moral judgement is based on their worldview, which can be Christian, atheist, etc. If you want different laws, world policy, etc., then vote for the people who share your worldview.

 

[FoBoT]

i think many of them are anti-religion
many are actively opposed to all religion and want to use secular power (govt.) to remove all religion from society

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i think many of them are anti-religion
many are actively opposed to all religion and want to use secular power (govt.) to remove all religion from society

Yes, many atheist activist types are like this. Thankfully they are a very tiny minority.

Others, like myself, see the hypocrisy in that and know that true religious freedom is the ONLY reason why I am allowed to not believe in a religion.

And true religious freedom is only possible under a government that remains 100% neutral on matters of religion.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Another unnecessary sh!tty religion thread response.

fixed

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i think many of them are anti-religion
many are actively opposed to all religion and want to use secular power (govt.) to remove all religion from society

Yes, many atheist activist types are like this. Thankfully they are a very tiny minority.

Others, like myself, see the hypocrisy in that and know that true religious freedom is the ONLY reason why I am allowed to not believe in a religion.

And true religious freedom is only possible under a government that remains 100% neutral on matters of religion.

A 100% neutral government would be a secular one, neither denying or endorsing religion. And others, like myself, believe as you do that freedom of religion is important. But we also believe that religion is a negative on society, and that eduacation on the subject is the way to rid ourselves of this negative.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

isn't the thrd option called "agnostic?"