How did any of you arrive at your conclusion?

[St Dionysius]

It's weird that atheists claim to be so superior to christians but yet is incapable of reading comprehension. It's weird that atheists accuse christians of nagging yet atheists can't even mind their own damn business and pretend everything revolves around them.

Why would we mind our own business when Christians form lobby groups to influence politics? Why would be mind our own business when christians have their religious days made compulsory. I'm sorry but your argument is downright retarded. Enjoy being the majority and having a victim complex.

herp derp i'm sure you get my point so stop trying to be ridiculous over something CiM was clearly wrong about since you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

The examples that CiM used are sound. They talk about how Christians just believe something "just because". Atheists require proof. How is this absurd and how is he "clearly wrong"?

Because the teapot doesn't have a archaic book and millions of followers it's somehow less believable than the teapot?

Some people aren't like sheep Tangerine, some people require evidence.

What are you even talking about? Where are you even trying to go with this? Where did I say anything about anything you've said... at all?

You're calling out Chris is Me for not reading the bible when you yourself talk about pretty "amazing interpretations". If one can interpret the text different ways, which is the right interpretation? Which parts are simply stories used to illustrate moral behavior in action or actual portrayals of the approved way to deal with issues by god/jesus?

You don't know, no christians know. You'd have to ask God himself. I think that it's strange that someone who is so jealous about being worshipped and threatens his creations which he apparently loves with eternal damnation would provide his followers with incomplete, arbritary texts.

Maybe Chris is Me hit too close to home and you felt like you had to lash out at him but this thread doesn't need your bickering, I'm not minimodding but could you please take it to PM if you've got some sort of personal grudge against this user?

 

[Tangerine]

lol abuse, you're hilarious since you have no idea what's even going on.

I lash at CiM because it's a gimmick at this point - CiM posts anywhere, Tangerine responds harshly. Obviously, you have no fucking clue what's even going on and yet you make these hilarious elaborate theories like I'm supposedly a sheep and I simply accept every Christian beliefs.

Why would we mind our own business when Christians form lobby groups to influence politics? Why would be mind our own business when christians have their religious days made compulsory.

Why bring yourself down to their level then?

I'm sorry but your argument is downright retarded. Enjoy being the majority and having a victim complex.

I don't think you even understood any of my post because your Christian Radar went off and probably mistranslated everything I have said.

The examples that CiM used are sound. They talk about how Christians just believe something "just because". Atheists require proof. How is this absurd and how is he "clearly wrong"?

Because the teapot doesn't have a archaic book and millions of followers it's somehow less believable than the teapot?

Let's dumb it down a bit. If the only justification for anyone to believe in God was "You can't disprove it".... why would they believe it in the first place? That's a ridiculous assumption. I think the better assumption would be that most of these people dont know how to reason properly (then again most atheists can't either so i guess it evens out...)

CiM isn't wrong (in my initial reading of his phrase where he was trying to "contradict me", he's completely wrong), but his example doesn't really say anything and thus it's really just a poor strawman and doesnt get anyone further in the argument at all and just sticks people in a retarded circle. You're not following this conversation very well at all and you just enjoy making these ridiculous assumptions lol

Some people aren't like sheep Tangerine, some people require evidence.

"lol" is all i'm going to say about this

You're calling out Chris is Me for not reading the bible when you yourself talk about pretty "amazing interpretations". If one can interpret the text different ways, which is the right interpretation? Which parts are simply stories used to illustrate moral behavior in action or actual portrayals of the approved way to deal with issues by god/jesus?

You don't know, no christians know. You'd have to ask God himself. I think that it's strange that someone who is so jealous about being worshipped and threatens his creations which he apparently loves with eternal damnation would provide his followers with incomplete, arbritary texts.

Sounds like you have already decided who God is and painted him in a certain way. The second you have done that, of course you can't believe in God. You act like the concept of God can be captured by a mere human. How arrogant. It's absolutely hilarious.

And once you have done that, of course you have grounds. But I guess this is too much for you ^_^;

I'll just say this. There are religious people who are sheep. "whatever", I could care less about the sheep who believe in a religion to make their lives feel better or some dumb shit. I am religious because I'm not arrogant enough to just say "I don't understand therefore it doesnt exist" or "I can't observe it therefore it doesn't exist".

Yeah I highly recommend that if you're going to even attempt at a response you turn off your bullshit christian radar. But too bad I"m not going to bother responding to you since I doubt you can even attempt to comprehend what I'm even trying to say lol

Oh, but it wouldn't be Chris is me if I had even the slightest bit of tact, now would it?

Touche. One of these days I'll learn to translate everything back to cim speak...

 

[TEA_DEMON]

I'm on the atheist end of agnostic, because there is no proof whatsoever of any god existing or not existing and I don't want to get into religion at all. I'm on the atheist end because, despite the fact I acknowledge there is no evidence for either side, I can't imagine an all-powerful being controlling everything. But if there is, good for him/her.

 

[Brain]

O.K: Here is my logic flow for 50%:

1. We do not know whether or not gods exist
2. A god or gods can either exist or not (50% chance of existence)
3. There are no other possibilities...are there? <--This is where I get 50%. I cannot see another possibility besides existence or non-existence

1. The Christian God can either exist or not (50% chance of existence)
2. Allah can either exist or not (50% chance of existence)
3. If the Christian God exists, then Allah does not (only one God may exist at once!)

1, 2 and 3: Either the Christian God exists or Allah exists, with probability 50% each. It is impossible that neither of them exists, because that would entail that either the probability of God or the probability of Allah is less than 50%. Hurray! Atheism is disproved!

But now, add a third possibility: the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who may not cohabit with either God or Allah. Clearly, at least one of them must have a probability smaller than 50% and your way to assign probabilities is proven inconsistent :(

Seriously, though, you are speaking nonsense. This is not how probability works.

To expand on this a little, there is an infinity of mutually exclusive gods one can imagine, and an infinity of mutually exclusive possible godless universes, so the probability of any of them in particular, should you assign each of them equal probability, is essentially zero. Typically, though, we assign higher prior probability to simpler concepts or universes, which sort of makes sense, so that the probability of a given universe would be an inverse function of its Kolmogorov complexity (which is not computable). Given the extreme complexity of deity, its prior probability (assuming no evidence for anything whatsoever) would probably be excessively low (on the order of 2^-(10^10), assuming gods are at least 1GB big - note that the prior of our universe would probably much higher but still much less than, say, a billionth of a billionth of a percent, given the ridiculous amount of possibilities - I am just trying to give people a feel of how improbable most stuff is under a reasonable prior).

 

[Altmer]

Tangerine: the point of atheism is not "I don't understand God, therefore he doesn't exist." The point of atheism is: "I don't get why you are favouring one God over another God when the probability that they exist is clearly the exact same."

You are religious to the point where you believe in God, but the same reasoning can be applied to believing in any other deity. That is the problem here. By assuming your logic works, you imply the existence of a ton of other deities that you somehow reject. I'd be curious to know what makes you consider God as the allmighty deity and not Zeus, Wotan, a Pink Llama, FSM, etc.

Russell's Teapot is sound because it means the burden of proof is on you; you claim God exist, therefore you have to provide the evidence. It's a matter of the fact that because God is defined the way he is in Christianity, he is not a falsifiable entity and therefore evidence that you provide is contradictory or meaningless in context. You are only showing that you have zero reason to favour one over the other. What makes God so special that it has to be him, and why can't it be one of the other deities; to me, calling all these deities is pretty much acknowledging the same thing. It's a different cultural fairytale based on upbringing and region ultimately leading to the same fallacious conclusion. It doesn't matter what you call him. Ultimately, you are requiring people to believe in something you provide zero evidence for, or you have to explain what all these other deities do and serve and why it is impossible to believe in them as opposed to yours.

 

[Terminator]

I looked at history. Greeks believed that a god pulled the sun across the sky. We found out that this could be explained, the god disappeared. Native Americans believed that a god made their crops grow. We discovered that sun, water, and nutrients make them grow, and thus this god is forgotten. Why should a god exist now?

Believing in atheism means that you believe in human science. Human science told us that there were only four elements on earth, but this theory was later corrected...You are believing in the same humans who tell you that they are not perfect, and thus make thousands of mistakes or errors (...). Yes, you can prove that x chemical exists because of the material we have to prove such a thing, but what about when it comes to something that we have 0.00000001% evidence of it being correct or incorrect. You can argue all night long, cry, swear, and do whatever actions you want to do; while I will just be here waiting for humans to theorize about another thing and another and...

Seriously, where does guilt come from? Also, what about identical twins not acting the same way (even though they are biologically the same); and finally, what about our inability to create perfect clones who behave in the same way, even though we have the exact DNA and the technology to reporudce it.

I know that the people who are going to reply to this post will attack my points and list a few examples taken away from the Internet or from a book; both being made by man.

Good luck trying to dissect the meaning of this post. I hope atheists and christians alike understand what I am trying to say and do not continue arguing about the same thoughts that have perplexed us for many years.

 

[Altmer]

Believing in atheism means that you believe in human science. Human science told us that there were only four elements on earth, but this theory was later corrected...You are believing in the same humans who tell you that they are not perfect, and thus make thousands of mistakes or errors (...). Yes, you can prove that x chemical exists because of the material we have to prove such a thing, but what about when it comes to something that we have 0.00000001% evidence of it being correct or incorrect. You can argue all night long, cry, swear, and do whatever actions you want to do; while I will just be here waiting for humans to theorize about another thing and another and...

You take the best you got. All you are doing is illustrating the power of science: it is MUTABLE in the face of new evidence. That is what is so cool about science: if science finds out you are wrong, then it will change to fit that and develop new theories.

Seriously, where does guilt come from?

Hormones. Short term emotions vs long term emotions. Not everything you do in the short term is good for you in the long term. Conflicting emotions causes guilt. Easy enough.

Also, what about identical twins not acting the same way (even though they are biologically the same);

They are genetically the same, but their expression doesn't have to be the same. If you have identical twins grow up in two different environments, they will act differently. In short, the environment also matters. Just going by genetic makeup isn't sufficient.

and finally, what about our inability to create perfect clones who behave in the same way, even though we have the exact DNA and the technology to reporudce it.

Nature's inability. Nature's copying machines make mistakes; DNA copying has a lot of errors. Most mutations are meaningless, some are beneficial, some suck. Even if you have the exact DNA the copying method botches itself sometimes. That's part of the whole deal. That's also already been explained by science.

Read a biology book?

I know that the people who are going to reply to this post will attack my points and list a few examples taken away from the Internet or from a book; both being made by man.

If you've got better evidence, show it to me! As long as current theories agree with the evidence, there's no reason to discard them.

Good luck trying to dissect the meaning of this post. I hope atheists and christians alike understand what I am trying to say and do not continue arguing about the same thoughts that have perplexed us for many years.

The argument doesn't need to have a conclusion for it to be useful.

One last comment: Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. Stop throwing around terms like "believing in atheism" because it's a contradiction in terms.

 

[Terminator]

If we had evidence, then you would not be arguing.

 

[cantab]

Believing in atheism means that you believe in human science. Human science told us that there were only four elements on earth, but this theory was later corrected...

Actually, the Greek idea of the four elements wasn't science. At it's heart, science is very simple. It is the idea that we can understand the world by LOOKING AND DOING. That's so simple it's hard to realise how important an idea it is. The Greeks didn't do that, they thought they could understand the world by thinking. The Greeks had some great mathematicians, but they were NOT scientists.

 

[Altmer]

If we had evidence, then you would not be arguing.

Exactly! Your claims are unfounded, mine are based on verifiable evidence. Guess which one I'm going to adhere to?

 

[Nik S D]

Looks like this thread started out peacefully, then degenerated into a verbal deathmatch between Atheists and Christians. I have to say that this is pointless and stupid.

Christians, think about this: if God does exist, wouldn't he be able to fight his own battle? Would he want his children to spend their time bickering over some useless topic instead of doing something meaningful?
Atheists, you want proof. Good. You don't have to go around slamming the Christians or calling them "sheep" all the time, do you? It's a damn matter of opinion!

Anyway, I haven't really arrived at a conclusion. Most of my family is Hindu, so sometimes I go say that one day, then say that I'm atheist the next. Chances are that I'm gonna start some sort of personal vendetta against the word "religion".

 

[Terminator]

Exactly! Your claims are unfounded, mine are based on verifiable evidence. Guess which one I'm going to adhere to?

Who the fuck said I am religious? I was asking questions and, guess what, I am told that "my claims" are unfounded. Of course, I knew that that this would happen. The thread started out with christians bashing the atheists for asking questions, and then....

<_<

Edit: It is quite ironic that both of our posts were our 111th! xD

 

[Altmer]

oh ok my bad but as you can see the argument isn't pointless.

Atheists, you want proof. Good. You don't have to go around slamming the Christians or calling them "sheep" all the time, do you? It's a damn matter of opinion!

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the goddamn kitchen!

 

[Tangerine]

Tangerine: the point of atheism is not "I don't understand God, therefore he doesn't exist." The point of atheism is: "I don't get why you are favouring one God over another God when the probability that they exist is clearly the exact same."

Then you're agnostic. I'm pretty sure atheists claim that "There's no reason for me to follow any set of rules other than the set of rules I find the best", which is literally just claiming "It doesn't matter as long as I find it good"

You are religious to the point where you believe in God, but the same reasoning can be applied to believing in any other deity. That is the problem here. By assuming your logic works, you imply the existence of a ton of other deities that you somehow reject. I'd be curious to know what makes you consider God as the allmighty deity and not Zeus, Wotan, a Pink Llama, FSM, etc.

Russell's Teapot is sound because it means the burden of proof is on you; you claim God exist, therefore you have to provide the evidence. It's a matter of the fact that because God is defined the way he is in Christianity, he is not a falsifiable entity and therefore evidence that you provide is contradictory or meaningless in context. You are only showing that you have zero reason to favour one over the other. What makes God so special that it has to be him, and why can't it be one of the other deities; to me, calling all these deities is pretty much acknowledging the same thing. It's a different cultural fairytale based on upbringing and region ultimately leading to the same fallacious conclusion. It doesn't matter what you call him. Ultimately, you are requiring people to believe in something you provide zero evidence for, or you have to explain what all these other deities do and serve and why it is impossible to believe in them as opposed to yours.

Of course. And there's likely some reason to that - that's my big issue with the teapot. Remember - I said I don't really care that other "gods" exist - that's perfectly fine with my view of Christianity (I mean, there's a reason it's emphasized there's one TRUE God or "you shall have no other gods before me")

You can't ever say someone believes in something for "no reason", period. If teapot is to be true, then no rational person will ever believe in any sort of religion. Yet, we have a lot of "rational" people who do believe in some sort of religion. How do you explain this? Are they simply just "irrational" when it comes to religion? I honestly doubt it. Same thing with picking a religion - how does one choose? Economics tell me that I will choose the one that makes me better off. That's the big issue with the teapot - it simply assumes that the only reason someone will believe in something is through evidence, and thus, claims that the "burden of proof is on the religious", from that result.

The issue is that, too many people are unsophisticated to the point where they'll just simply fall into the trap of the "You can't disprove it therefore it's true". If someone actually believes this and this is the ONLY reason they believe in a religion, then the teapot is valid... but such kind of mentality is irrational (IE there are reasons that they do not want to admit for being religious such as family bias, friends bias, wanting to go to heaven, etc, you can think of a lot of things that are simply not related to being spiritual and more selfish) because no one will be religious and put that much money/time into being religious (going to church, paying tithe, etc). If someone is putting in such costs, then there are definitely reasons why people believe in something that's far past "You can't disprove it therefore it's true", even if they argue that, because it's likely that they either can't reason or they dont want to admit things. Basically, the teapot is a bad trap and shouldn't be used in any serious argument.

Faith is based on expectations, really. That's how people make their decisions. You are simply saying that the expectation is zero due to a more sophisticated pascal's wager, I'm saying that the expectation is significantly higher due to other reasons (IE I narrow down the possibilities). Pascal's wager is a bad reason to convince an atheist, but it does represent my point of expected value very well. Proof is irrelevant in expected value, when you're saying "Show me it exist" and others just believe it to exist. You can use the wager to see the key difference between atheist and the religious that'll probably never be reconciled.

 

[CaptKirby]

lol there is no one "point" of atheism, that is ridiculous. Atheists have different ideologies and reasoning for being atheist and how to treat their path as atheists just like members of the same religion. I do not give a good god damn shit about religion - if some ridiculous god actually sends people to some hell or reincarnates them as crickets as punishment, then I would rather be in hell or a cricket than pay lip service to that. I am intellectual enough to give reactions to religions, essentially because I "have to" when repeatedly confronted by them, but I really just do not care. The only "religion" I even respect at all is Daoism, and that is the religion most at odds with me, so I cannot really care much about that one either.

Beyond even that, I do not care about the likelihood of any one god being true or not either, but rather I believe that the idea of any god(s) watching specially over humans is ridiculous. Scientists now estimate 400 billion stars in just the Milky Way galaxy, so I do not see why humans are so intent on pretending some mystical force cares about humans so much. Some conditions led to life on this planet somehow, and whatever they were, I do not think there is any chance just sentient life is the one specially favored part of any god's concerns. Existence is far too big for that to be so.

(sorry Tangerine this is not really what your post was about I know that! I just wanted to give the a crass atheistic response to that guy's logic)

 

[Altmer]

Then you're agnostic. I'm pretty sure atheists claim that "There's no reason for me to follow any set of rules other than the set of rules I find the best", which is literally just claiming "It doesn't matter as long as I find it good"

I'm pretty sure I am both agnostic and atheist. I do not believe God can be proven or disproven, but I don't believe in him regardless. So I am both.

Of course. And there's likely some reason to that - that's my big issue with the teapot. Remember - I said I don't really care that other "gods" exist - that's perfectly fine with my view of Christianity (I mean, there's a reason it's emphasized there's one TRUE God or "you shall have no other gods before me")

Yes, but WHY is he the true God you believe in?

You can't ever say someone believes in something for "no reason", period. If teapot is to be true, then no rational person will ever believe in any sort of religion. Yet, we have a lot of "rational" people who do believe in some sort of religion. How do you explain this? Are they simply just "irrational" when it comes to religion? I honestly doubt it. Same thing with picking a religion - how does one choose? Economics tell me that I will choose the one that makes me better off. That's the big issue with the teapot - it simply assumes that the only reason someone will believe in something is through evidence, and thus, claims that the "burden of proof is on the religious", from that result.

Rational people don't always have to believe in rational things. Matters what they were brought up in. If you are completely rational but start with wrong presuppositions, garbage is still gonna come out.

Why are you better off with God than Allah or the IPU?

The issue is that, too many people are unsophisticated to the point where they'll just simply fall into the trap of the "You can't disprove it therefore it's true". If someone actually believes this and this is the ONLY reason they believe in a religion, then the teapot is valid... but such kind of mentality is irrational (IE there are reasons that they do not want to admit for being religious such as family bias, friends bias, wanting to go to heaven, etc, you can think of a lot of things that are simply not related to being spiritual and more selfish) because no one will be religious and put that much money/time into being religious (going to church, paying tithe, etc). If someone is putting in such costs, then there are definitely reasons why people believe in something that's far past "You can't disprove it therefore it's true", even if they argue that, because it's likely that they either can't reason or they dont want to admit things. Basically, the teapot is a bad trap and shouldn't be used in any serious argument.

Errr.... no? Not really? Indoctrination also happens. The amount of effort I put into going into church doesn't necessarily have to do with the amount of religious feelings I have. It could be, likely even, but not necessarily.

The teapot works because it requires you to justify your belief period. The teapot doesn't just work against "you can't disprove it, therefore it is true." It asks you to actually prove it. You misunderstand the analogy. If you can claim God to exist, then I can claim anything to exist - even if it is complete baloney, of course - and you won't be able to disprove it either. God is by definition something you need reason for to justify belief in him. Of course they have their reasons, but then they need to actually give some.

Faith is based on expectations, really. That's how people make their decisions. You are simply saying that the expectation is zero due to a more sophisticated pascal's wager, I'm saying that the expectation is significantly higher due to other reasons (IE I narrow down the possibilities). Pascal's wager is a bad reason to convince an atheist, but it does represent my point of expected value very well. Proof is irrelevant in expected value, when you're saying "Show me it exist" and others just believe it to exist. You can use the wager to see the key difference between atheist and the religious that'll probably never be reconciled.

This makes no sense. If I expect a God to exist, we're going to come back to what Brain said about confirmation bias, selective evidence, etc. Of course you're gonna see God if that is what you want to see.

lol there is no one "point" of atheism, that is ridiculous. Atheists have different ideologies and reasoning for being atheist and how to treat their path as atheists just like members of the same religion. I do not give a good god damn shit about religion - if some ridiculous god actually sends people to some hell or reincarnates them as crickets as punishment, then I would rather be in hell or a cricket than pay lip service to that. I am intellectual enough to give reactions to religions, essentially because I "have to" when repeatedly confronted by them, but I really just do not care. The only "religion" I even respect at all is Daoism, and that is the religion most at odds with me, so I cannot really care much about that one either.

I know, silly. But Tangerine was responding to a different point and I intended to correct the response.

 

[Tangerine]

I'm pretty sure I am both agnostic and atheist. I do not believe God can be proven or disproven, but I don't believe in him regardless. So I am both.

And you still fall under the point I made regarding that which you haven't responded to.

Yes, but WHY is he the true God you believe in?

Why are you better off with God than Allah or the IPU?

Why is he the true God I believe in? Probably a combination of initial selective bias, experiences, that leads to the fact that the ideals of Christianity appealing to me. If I was born to a more fundamentalist Christian family I likely won't be Christian today, so it probably has to do with the liberal views I have regarding it and not holding myself to an interpretation made by a dead person 2000 years ago.

So yes, my experiences definitely has to do a part of it. There is no objective justification. Then again, I'm not really trying to convince anyone to be Christian (especially over the internet where the only thing apparently matters is words) so I'm not too sure why you're trying to push that lame point. If you're just going to ask "why do you hold this selective bias" then you know you have no real direction on the purpose of such discussions since in the end it just comes down to fundamental differences between the religious and ones that aren't one.

Errr.... no? Not really? Indoctrination also happens. The amount of effort I put into going into church doesn't necessarily have to do with the amount of religious feelings I have. It could be, likely even, but not necessarily.

Did you even read what I said... particularly

but such kind of mentality is irrational (IE there are reasons that they do not want to admit for being religious such as family bias, friends bias, wanting to go to heaven, etc, you can think of a lot of things that are simply not related to being spiritual and more selfish

Indoctrination is definitely a reason. It has nothing to with religious feelings, it's just the fact that many people will consider themselves Christian for those reasons (yet probably dont understand the religion at all). The issue is that most people simply are not aware of it and thus vulnerable to the trap that is the teapot.

The teapot works because it requires you to justify your belief period. The teapot doesn't just work against "you can't disprove it, therefore it is true." It asks you to actually prove it. You misunderstand the analogy. If you can claim God to exist, then I can claim anything to exist - even if it is complete baloney, of course - and you won't be able to disprove it either. God is by definition something you need reason for to justify belief in him. Of course they have their reasons, but then they need to actually give some.

Teapot is good from a clarification viewpoint, but in an ACTUAL debate when you want to get something out of this entire thing it is quite worthless since it just throws things around the circles. You are missing my criticism of the teapot - I'm saying that the teapot is completely irrelevant in an actual debate and worthless to those who you want to use it against since they are likely hiding their true reasons because either they can't reason or are simply not aware of such factors.

Rational people don't always have to believe in rational things. Matters what they were brought up in. If you are completely rational but start with wrong presuppositions, garbage is still gonna come out.

Aw, funny how you just implied everyone who isn't Atheist is "wrong" and spewing out "garbage". I appreciate it and maybe I won't bother to respond to you in the future since we're not getting anywhere until you drop that kind of bullshit attitude.

This makes no sense. If I expect a God to exist, we're going to come back to what Brain said about confirmation bias, selective evidence, etc. Of course you're gonna see God if that is what you want to see.

Duh.

That's my point exactly. We perceive information differently. That's why people try to pull off Pascal's wager all the time and are often corrected once another view point kicks in. I never said Pascal's wager is going to convince anyone. Why are you not reading what I'm saying (I claimed that Pascal's Wager is useless as a measure of convincing, but IT SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS AND THE ATHEIST WELL).

Seriously, what the fuck. Why should I take you seriously when you obviously don't take me seriously enough to actually read my posts instead of acting like I'm completely and utterly wrong or something? You're agreeing with me and then trying to attack me for it... it's extremely frustrating since you do this to me over and over.

 

[cantab]

I'm pretty sure atheists claim that "There's no reason for me to follow any set of rules other than the set of rules I find the best", which is literally just claiming "It doesn't matter as long as I find it good"

Untrue. Commonly claimed by anti-atheists, but untrue. Atheism is simply the consideration that there are no gods.

 

[Tangerine]

Untrue. Commonly claimed by anti-atheists, but untrue. Atheism is simply the consideration that there are no gods.

How do you decide there's no gods?
How do you decide how to live?
How do you decide, etc, etc, etc?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the mentality, but it's a direct consequence of having "no gods"

EDIT: Yeah i'm not going to bother with this thread until I see that people can actually hold a discussion lol

 

[cantab]

I've already said why I don't think there are any gods.

How do I decide how to live? By considering my choices, and how they will affect both myself and others. I'm obviously influenced by societal norms, and there is the basic moral principle "do unto others as you wish they would do unto you."

To any religious people who argue atheists do not have morals. (It does seem to be a common accusation)Why do you, a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/whatever behave morally?

Because God tells you? That's not moral, that's doing as you're told.
To get into Heaven, avoid Hell, attain Nirvana, etc? That's not moral, that's looking after your own ass.
To please God? That's not moral, that's sucking up.
To be MORAL is to do 'the right thing' because you believe it to be the right thing. It is to consider others as well as yourself. It is an inner conviction of right and wrong. One influenced by society and upbringing, true, but more than just what is taught. And all these things apply whether or not one believes in any gods or religion.

 

[Altmer]

And you still fall under the point I made regarding that which you haven't responded to.

Are you asking what morals I live by? I don't know, anything that's pragmatic and convenient. Anything that makes sense. I don't decide God does not exist. I don't know if he does I just choose not to live by it. My morality isn't completely arbitrary, Tangerine. Ofc it's what I find good and what standards I hold to some value or other. there are many moral systems that don't involve God but they aren't one and the same for every atheist

so take your pick from every secular belief that is what an atheist believes in, although belief is a strong word, it's more like a conditional conviction

Why is he the true God I believe in? Probably a combination of initial selective bias, experiences, that leads to the fact that the ideals of Christianity appealing to me. If I was born to a more fundamentalist Christian family I likely won't be Christian today, so it probably has to do with the liberal views I have regarding it and not holding myself to an interpretation made by a dead person 2000 years ago.

How come you get to pick which parts of the Bible you can loosely interpret and which ones you can't?

So yes, my experiences definitely has to do a part of it. There is no objective justification. Then again, I'm not really trying to convince anyone to be Christian (especially over the internet where the only thing apparently matters is words) so I'm not too sure why you're trying to push that lame point. If you're just going to ask "why do you hold this selective bias" then you know you have no real direction on the purpose of such discussions since in the end it just comes down to fundamental differences between the religious and ones that aren't one.

yes but saying "well I experienced it even though it has selective bias therefore, God exists" isn't really a good argument for the existence of God

I experienced a leprechaun yesterday and leprechauns clearly don't exist. see what I mean? faith can't account for the existence of God else it has to account for every human fantasy ever

if you believe in God you have to believe in the rest or there has to be a reason regarding God why he is superior to all the others

basically you're just saying well I grew up with God therefore it is God really but if I didn't then I wouldn't have?

religion is a choice

Did you even read what I said... particularly

but such kind of mentality is irrational (IE there are reasons that they do not want to admit for being religious such as family bias, friends bias, wanting to go to heaven, etc, you can think of a lot of things that are simply not related to being spiritual and more selfish

Indoctrination is definitely a reason. It has nothing to with religious feelings, it's just the fact that many people will consider themselves Christian for those reasons (yet probably dont understand the religion at all). The issue is that most people simply are not aware of it and thus vulnerable to the trap that is the teapot.

yes what is an actual reason to believe in him then

Teapot is good from a clarification viewpoint, but in an ACTUAL debate when you want to get something out of this entire thing it is quite worthless since it just throws things around the circles. You are missing my criticism of the teapot - I'm saying that the teapot is completely irrelevant in an actual debate and worthless to those who you want to use it against since they are likely hiding their true reasons because either they can't reason or are simply not aware of such factors.

so basically the teapot is wrong because religion isn't based on reason

what am I supposed to do in a discussion with you when you aren't adhering to anything that makes the discussion meaningful

this just makes I believe in God a loose statement with no value whatsoever

Aw, funny how you just implied everyone who isn't Atheist is "wrong" and spewing out "garbage". I appreciate it and maybe I won't bother to respond to you in the future since we're not getting anywhere until you drop that kind of bullshit attitude.

reason is a machine, it's a computer, it's logic. if you feed the wrong parameters into the machine, wrong answers come out! that's how it is. if people are rational and believe in religion i assume either they aren't rational or their presuppositions are wrong because else they wouldn't believe in God.

clearly you agree since God isn't rational.

else faith is rational and you can explain it.

it doesn't work any other way than that.

Duh.

That's my point exactly. We perceive information differently. That's why people try to pull off Pascal's wager all the time and are often corrected once another view point kicks in. I never said Pascal's wager is going to convince anyone. Why are you not reading what I'm saying (I claimed that Pascal's Wager is useless as a measure of convincing, but IT SHOWS YOU THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS AND THE ATHEIST WELL).

i know the difference, the problem is it doesn't solve the argument at all since it basically comes down to "do I use logic to determine my beliefs or not"

I don't see the point in believing in anything unless there is reason backed up with empirical evidence. else i might as well believe in the IPU and I should have lobbies for IPUism in biology class along with creationism etc.

Seriously, what the fuck. Why should I take you seriously when you obviously don't take me seriously enough to actually read my posts instead of acting like I'm completely and utterly wrong or something? You're agreeing with me and then trying to attack me for it... it's extremely frustrating since you do this to me over and over.

I read your post, agreed with you, and then see you fail to draw the conclusion that I did. Clearly I am either missing something or you're wrong. I still don't see what I'm missing.

 

[Miscellaneous]

To any religious people who argue atheists do not have morals. (It does seem to be a common accusation)Why do you, a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/whatever behave morally?

Because God tells you? That's not moral, that's doing as you're told.
To get into Heaven, avoid Hell, attain Nirvana, etc? That's not moral, that's looking after your own ass.
To please God? That's not moral, that's sucking up.
To be MORAL is to do 'the right thing' because you believe it to be the right thing. It is to consider others as well as yourself. It is an inner conviction of right and wrong. One influenced by society and upbringing, true, but more than just what is taught. And all these things apply whether or not one believes in any gods or religion.

Although i sort of agree with you on the moral basis, I don't believe it hurts to be kind out of fear or Pleasing God. In turn, morals come back. Maybe the world would be more honest without religion, but not better. You talk about atheism as a self control, as if you don't want God to affect what you think. That's not really the right attitude to take. And you can't go round assuming everyone religious is nice because they don't think they have a choice.

Atheism is not proving there's not a god, it's believing. And the thread in general says this. Most people just feel or know what they think, or justify it. No doubt that Religion is just a sometimes seemingly pathetic set of ideals, but it does have it merits. If I was going to be happier and a better person as a Christian I would become one. I supose I'm contradicting myself here, but I feel as long as you've got you're morals in the right place, and you enjoy life, I don't see why your choice should matter to you. You have to live with it at the end of the day.
And it is the most common and vulgar human response to deny something like the existance of God, I don't mind atheists who give reason for there being "No gods". But I hate people who just say God's not real, because he just isn't. You do have to explain you're conculsion, or it isn't one

 

[Brain]

Then you're agnostic. I'm pretty sure atheists claim that "There's no reason for me to follow any set of rules other than the set of rules I find the best", which is literally just claiming "It doesn't matter as long as I find it good"

This is what everyone does. As a religious person, you follow a set of rules grounded in religion because you find it best. For no religious person is the set of rules they find the best anything else than what their religion tells them, or they would not be religious.

Anyway, Tangerine, tell me if I am getting this right: you acknowledge that you are a Christian for mostly circumstantial reasons, including the fact that it "feels right" to you, which you seem to agree stems from being indoctrinated to some extent. Had you been raised otherwise, you acknowledge that you would hold another religion or perhaps even an atheist. So you are essentially aware that your beliefs are irrational, but you reject the relevance of that fact and believe that it is in your best interests to believe anyway. If this is what you are saying, it is perplexing. Are you aware that irrational beliefs are unlikely to be true (for if they were not, they would be rational)? Don't you care about believing true things? From my perspective, it is as if there was a priest who knew fully well that God did not exist, but (quite cynically might I add) deemed it necessary for people to believe he did, except in this case the priest and the people are contained within the same brain and that's just bizarre.

I don't know whether to say "well at least you acknowledge that your belief system is incoherent" or "well at least other believers are not aware their belief system is incoherent".

 

[Altmer]

I'm not saying God isn't real. I'm saying I can't (dis)prove he exists, but I don't believe in him regardless.

 

[Tangerine]

This is what everyone does. As a religious person, you follow a set of rules grounded in religion because you find it best. For no religious person is the set of rules they find the best anything else than what their religion tells them, or they would not be religious.

Not completely. Religion dictates that we break ourselves on the rules, rather than break the rules because "we find them irrelevant". Doing so would be arrogance. The issue is that society has changed a lot, but religion has not adapted fast enough - hence what we need to do is find WHY the rules were there to begin with and live by such reasons.

So you are essentially aware that your beliefs are irrational, but you reject the relevance of that fact and believe that it is in your best interests to believe anyway.

If you want to clump all of those factors into "irrational", then sure - to a degree. If I was simply "Indoctrinated", I 100% wouldn't be christian at this point.

Basically, CS Lewis' quote applies - "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." Call it indoctrination, irrational, etc, but it's simply another way of looking at the world (hence, worldview)

If this is what you are saying, it is perplexing. Are you aware that irrational beliefs are unlikely to be true (for if they were not, they would be rational)? Don't you care about believing true things? From my perspective, it is as if there was a priest who knew fully well that God did not exist, but (quite cynically might I add) deemed it necessary for people to believe he did, except in this case the priest and the people are contained within the same brain and that's just bizarre.

You assume the following.

1) The system of "logic" we have is not simply an APPROXIMATION of how everything actually works, but it is actually how everything works. I have no reason to believe that human rationality encompasses everything. I have no reason to believe that there isn't something more we're missing. If you wish to call this irrational, go ahead. But it's silly to assume that the 5 senses are everything, nor is it assume everything works according to some models we create.

2) What makes you say that what you believe in is actually true, and not just an approximation of what we as humans can understand?

3) I don't believe it simply because it is in my best interest. I'm never going to say that I believe in something because I'm always finding errors and reconciling them. I have a theory, and I want to make this theory as complete as I can. If you wish to call that a belief then go ahead - but I'm the last person who'd take anything as "truth".