Author Topic: Atheists Least Trusted (Read 6454 times)

SaburoS · « **Reply #270 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:03:45 PM »

moot,
I admit that there is no proof of God to my satisfaction.
If there has been viable explainations, I'd be:
1) Agnostic, or
2) A believer/follower.

luzs,
I'm not preaching. Keep twisting the facts to suit your argument though.

********************

I'm not trying to convert those that disagree with me as the idea of a God/Supreme Beings existance is a very personal one.
Who am I to tell you or anyone else what you are to believe?
Who are you to tell me what I am to believe?
Good people will do good, evil people will do evil regardless of their beliefs.

If you want a discussion about the existance of something, then prove it.
The "rules" of the burdon of proof is to prove that something exists, not the other way around. Yes, one can use circumstantial evidence to bolster their argument(s).

Do you all believe in Big Foot? The Lochness Monster?
I don't. I say they don't exist.
Again, the burdon of proof is for those to prove they exist, not for me to prove they don't.

SaburoS · « **Reply #271 on:** April 01, 2006, 12:20:08 PM »

SEAGOON,

I can't speak for other Atheists as we are all different, I can only speak for myself.
Yes, in the end, on a personal basis, it does not matter how I lived after I'm dead.
I don't need to have a belief in a God/Supreme Being as I just don't believe in its existance.
HOWEVER, what defines me as a person, a citizen is how I treat others and who I am while alive. After I'm dead, it will not matter to me as "I" will no longer be here, nor will I have the capacity to care. I will be dead. I am as sure of that as I am sure that there is no God/Supreme Being, that I need air, water, food, rest, etc. to survive in the meantime.
My path is a very personal one as it has to be.
Obviously we all here have different life's paths that we have chosen and will follow.
Do I see your different path as a wrong one? Not at all for it is your own, and is very personal.
As long as you do good and do not harm me, my family, my friends, etc., I will wish you well your journey through life.

moot · « **Reply #272 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:01:30 PM »

BigFoot and Nessie are possible, natural entities.
'God' is, as a matter of fact, neither provable nor disprovable by nature.
That God exists, or not, are statements of faith.

SaburoS · « **Reply #273 on:** April 01, 2006, 01:30:33 PM »

That 'God' exists is a statement of faith as it is on faith, not proof that 'God' exists.
That 'God' does not exist is not based on faith. It is the absence of the proof of its existance that I base my opinion.
That's the difference.

That is MY opinion. For me, God does not exist.
For you, God does exist. Right?

Okay, let's move on.

To convince me, bring some facts to the table, if you are so inclined.

I am not about to try to convince you that God does not exist for you.
It's not my place nor my goal.
I find myself rather tolerant of other's beliefs (as long as it doesn't harm others) that are different than my own, you?

moot · « **Reply #274 on:** April 02, 2006, 04:58:47 AM »

I'm not trying to convince you of my subjective opinion, but to share some plain and transparent logic.
But for what it's worth, I think anything outside of the realm of provable reality is an absolute waste of time, right here and now in this life.
I think faith and hope are foolish, and I think making decisions on anything else than established facts is irresponsible.

There's nothing more to it, you should ask someone to whom it's small change, like someone in the nearest philosophy faculty.. IIRC the 'division' of tought in two, rational and irrational, is something taught at the very first lecture(s) of the very first philosophy classes.
I can't think of a simpler way to explain it:

Absence of proof for something is not a valid confirmation that something isn't true. There's a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
You're telling me the absence of sufficient proof to convince you that God exists is sufficient to convince you he doesn't exist.
I'm saying proving its existence, or lack thereof, is not possible, and therefore admitting either is necessarily irrational..
I'm not going to give you proof either way, because it's impossible, which is exactly my point.

Vulcan · « **Reply #275 on:** April 02, 2006, 05:21:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy MT,

As I said before, if there was no God, and the Christian worldview was false, then I would not only be forced to concede your point, I'd have to go even further and say the conversation was pointless in that concepts of good and evil were entirely subjective and ultimately meaningless. In the end, devoting oneself to eating, drinking, and being merry or being a missionary doctor would be absolutely equal, and what would any of it matter when the Sun was darkened and everyone who ever lived on the planet earth had been gone for eons? What would it matter to the atoms whether you had been Joe Stalin or Billy Graham - a hedonist or a philanthropist? Certainly it would long since have ceased mattering to you after you winked out of existence forever.

Such an arrogant attitude from christianity, to believe that nothing matters outside of their beliefs, and that the world could not be a good place without some 'supernatural' mumbo jumbo. This is precisely what annoys athiests... the 'if you don't believe in my god then your bad' attidue conjoined 'well if you're a good person then god must be in your heart'.

Before the christians arrived religious people and non-religious people lived, did good, did bad, civilisations rose and fell, life went on just fine without christianity. Right now there are 3 religions dominant in the world, one of those is on the rise, in a few hundred years will islamic American's look back on christianity as America's dark age? The point is even after christianity has died out or become some fringe group of lunies people will continue to do good things without it and live on.

moot · « **Reply #276 on:** April 02, 2006, 05:32:32 AM »

I dunno about arrogant, but it's certainly taking for granted sapiens' cognitive biases.
Can't blame em for trying tho..

lada · « **Reply #277 on:** April 02, 2006, 05:41:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
You still haven't explained why atheism is less honest than christianity.

religion people are generaly more honest and good.... we better dont ask about those $5 erotic movie, where good god fellas are screaming "ohhh good oooh good" for 63 mins.

Religion people are one of those most hypocratic that i ever meet.

In other words there are many honest and nice people around, but i would not try to pick, identify them on religion basis.
I personaly meet more cheap lairs among christians that among atheists.

Thx god that 80% of local folk are atheists

Excel1 · « **Reply #278 on:** April 02, 2006, 06:46:02 AM »

Judging by the way this thread has developed, Christian bashing must be the only way atheists relieve the monotony of walking around in circles all day through the unbalancing effect of the chip on their shoulder.

It's pathetic.

Excel

Hangtime · « **Reply #279 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:00:19 AM »

Christian bashing?

Where, Excel?

Or, are we to take it on faith?

SaburoS · « **Reply #280 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:35:07 AM »

***************DISCLAIMER*****************
My beliefs are just that and not to say what I believe in , so should everyone else. I respect the fact that there are those with various stages in their belief in the faith and the existance/nonexistance of a God/Supreme Being/etc.
*****************************************

Quote

Originally posted by moot
~snip~
But for what it's worth, I think anything outside of the realm of provable reality is an absolute waste of time, right here and now in this life.
~snip...~I think making decisions on anything else than established facts is irresponsible.~snip~

FWIW I agree with these points to an extent.

Absence of proof for something is not a valid confirmation that something isn't true.

Too black and white, absolute.
I can also claim that there are no such things as green men from Mars, no Pegasis horses, no ghosts, etc (see the "established facts" statement above).
The arguments I've seen for the existance of a God/Supreme Being just haven't held up to scrutiny as I've interpreted it (again, see "established facts" above).

There's a name for this logical fallacy, but I can't be arsed to look it up.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam? Just guessing the fallacy, not agreeing with your conclusion though.

You're telling me the absence of sufficient proof to convince you that God exists is sufficient to convince you he doesn't exist.

To me there has been no proof of the existance of a Supreme Being.
In my mind, the idea of a God existing via the Christian/Catholic/Muslim/etc ideals just has too many inconsistancies and conjecture.

I'm saying proving its existence, or lack thereof, is not possible, and therefore admitting either is necessarily irrational..

Argumentum ad populum?
And I'm saying that by virtue of the proof/explainations of a God existing not holding up to scrutiny is proof enough of that God does not exist. Occam's Razor? Also see "established facts" above.

I'm not going to give you proof either way, because it's impossible, which is exactly my point.

And some of those that are believers will disagree as will some of those that don't believe. As to the "impossible" is all a matter of frame of reference and to what bias we start from, including yours.

SaburoS · « **Reply #281 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:38:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Excel1
Judging by the way this thread has developed, Christian bashing must be the only way atheists relieve the monotony of walking around in circles all day through the unbalancing effect of the chip on their shoulder.

It's pathetic.

Excel

I'm an Atheist. I'm not Christian bashing, as a matter of fact, I take great care to point out that everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

So I have to ask you:
1) Why are you bashing Atheists as a whole?
2) You going to put that apparently large chip on your shoulder away?

lazs2 · « **Reply #282 on:** April 02, 2006, 09:58:16 AM »

subaru... you are a smart guy... are you saying that calling yourself an athiest is not a statement of faith?

I have admited that belief in god is a statement of faith.... there is no proof other than what is all around us...

An agnostic is more scientific... he says that he doesn't know and that "how could he"... If he sees proof either way he will probly go wit that.

An athiest is simply a wild eyed preacher of his agenda... that there is no god and no possibility of one. How would they know that?

What about aliens and bigfoot? no proof so they must not exist right? I say that there is no proof that god is impossible.

MT... I am afraid that seagoon is correct.... for good or bad all morales as we recognize them are the result of one religion or another. The church of athiesm is a relatively new one that has not contributed to morality one way or the other.... they simply critique or applaud ones allready made by religion.

lazs

moot · « **Reply #283 on:** April 02, 2006, 10:19:06 AM »

We're not understanding each other. It's impressive how easy it is to misunderstand over these posts.
I've just had a long day of work and I'm going to argue at no more than one point at a time.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following's at the base of your p.o.v., so that's the first point:

I'm saying that not seeing proof of something being true isn't a valid basis to conclude it's false.
I think it's called something like Proof by a negative.. so if you still don't see what i'm saying, you can look it up, I don't know how to boil it down any simpler than that.

Here you go: negative proof.

lazs2 · « **Reply #284 on:** April 02, 2006, 10:32:11 AM »

good link moot... arguement from ignorance.... That is all I am saying... you can't say that just because you are ignorant of something it does not exist.

If you do that then you would have to admit that your belief is nothing but faith based..

If you give it a name then you are making a statement... "I am an athiest" You are so concerned that you can't even think straight.

lazs