Atheists & agnositcs: How do you view religious people?

PoD said:
You don't mean to, but then you go on to being overly pedant!? Meaning I am going to be overly pedant then pretend I am not!

Okay that is your choice and I respect you for that (see how I turned the cheek).

Thank you for your comments I shall take them into consideration!
Click to expand...

Haha, sorry :p

It was just that people often go in guns blazing to say "we have proof of mavity! we have proof of evolution!". If we are trying to be accurate (which you should when you are speaking scientifically), we should be saying that we believe them to be true because we have overwhelming evidence that undisputedly points in that direction (well, perhaps only for evolution, I'm an absolute numpty at physics!).
 
I find atheists really annoying, constantly making petty threads about how religious people are wrong about every little thing, like it's some kind of ego trip for them to ram their smug views down everyone's throats :rolleyes:

I'm not religious btw
 
Not read the thread so... My input is that both religious and irreligious people are both stupid, they will be stupid with a god to believe in and stupid without a god to believe in.

Moral of the story, Human Beings are idiots.
 
I've never had atheists knock on my door and tell that if I rejected religion I would somehow be "saved".

I've never had an atheist ask me in a public place when I got the true message that there was no god.

I've never had an atheist tell me (at a wedding) that because I was there then I must have rejected theism and that they could tell because " I glowed all over".
 
Castiel said:
Well, as for Conan or the events in the Silmarillion we have the authors assertion on the inside book-cover that these are entirely works of fiction.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't prove that they are fiction. People can lie or be mistaken.

As for the rest, I can say that I do not believe in Pixies or the Easter Bunny without dismissing God or any other conjecture I may decide to reserve judgement on.
Click to expand...

You can say that...but why are you right to make such a distinction?

This favourite argument of atheists is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard as every single Human being on the planet is atheist about something.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the point. If you think it's ridiculous, it's because you haven't understood it.
 
footman said:
I've never had atheists knock on my door and tell that if I rejected religion I would somehow be "saved".

I've never had an atheist ask me in a public place when I got the true message that there was no god.

I've never had an atheist tell me (at a wedding) that because I was there then I must have rejected theism and that they could tell because " I glowed all over".
Click to expand...

Great. Anything else to add? A sound and convincing argument perhaps?
 
footman said:
I've never had atheists knock on my door and tell that if I rejected religion I would somehow be "saved".

I've never had an atheist ask me in a public place when I got the true message that there was no god.

I've never had an atheist tell me (at a wedding) that because I was there then I must have rejected theism and that they could tell because " I glowed all over".
Click to expand...

Actually, I've never heard a theist publicly declare that someone else was an idiot for not sharing the same beliefs... seems to be an exclusively athiest tradition.

My point being, I wouldn't condemn an entire group because the actions of a few that belong to it.
 
Last edited:
izzy eckerslike said:
They may not be in your face but they have achieved exactly what they set out to do which is gain another convert i.e. you.

Of course your new friends are caring and helpful but does this mean that an atheist is automatically going to be the opposite ?

Blind faith is the only way I can describe religious believers because there's little else to base beliefs on is there ?
From primitive man worshiping the sun & moon and on through the Greek & Roman era gods ( which we now call 'Mythology' ) right up til the present day Christian & Islamic Mythology there is not one iota of creditable evidence that there is anything supernatural let alone an all seeing omnipotent god as apparently believed by so many.
I could say the same as other posters in that as long as it doesn't interfere with my life they can get on with as it's their choice but region is indoctrinated into our daily lives in so many ways from cradle to the grave for example with my kids saying prayers and being given RE lessons at school whether I like it or not.
Did you know that saying goodbye is an acronym for 'god be with you' ?
Click to expand...

Sorry, not correct. Where did I say I'd been converted? I've enjoyed their company, and continue to do so, and feel very welcome into their family, church etc, wherever it extends, but I so far have not been, as you say, converted. I think they understand that would have to come from me, from within me, but it just hasn't happened, and they know that.

Doesn't stop all those qualities I see in them being present and true, though. They're not doing it for my benefit.
 
Dolph said:
Well, except that you can define a test for most of those things, apart from the Pixies, but science doesn't disprove the existence of those pixies, it just proposes an alternative mechanism in line with the assumptions of the scientific method that are taken a priori.
Click to expand...

How can you define a test for the other things? If we have to treat religious texts as histories because we can't go back in time and prove the events described in them didn't happen, we also have to treat anything as equally valid if we can't disprove it. An example:

The Illuminati are working with secret agencies in the USA that have access to alien technology. This technology was recovered and investigated in Area 51. Secret agencies used the communications system from a crashed spaceship to initiate contact with the alien civilisation the ship came from. There's a secret treaty between the USA and the aliens. Some people believe that the UK is also a party in this treaty, but that's just a rumour. Restrictions on agents' use of alien or alien-derived technology are much greater than they were in the past, mostly as a result of an incident in which an agent using alien communication technology was filmed during the making of a Charlie Chaplin film.

That is writing describing events of the past. You can't prove it false. Should you take it as history?
 
Angilion said:
Which doesn't prove that they are fiction. People can lie or be mistaken.
Click to expand...

Why would they lie? How would an author be mistaken about his own work?

seems a very weak argument.



Angilion said:
You can say that...but why are you right to make such a distinction?
Click to expand...

Why would I be wrong to make a distinction, what evidence do you have to oppose my opinion.



Angilion said:
Which is part of the point. If you think it's ridiculous, it's because you haven't understood it.
Click to expand...

Haven't I?. I understood it perfectly.

It is a tenuous step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Pixies, Superman) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities.

I do not think the god of, say Pope Benedict exists. But I cannot speak of the non-existence of God in general. No evidence decides that, my opinion does.

Thus the fairy argument is ridiculous.

Besides who says I don't believe in fairies or at least that some basic truth lies in mythology whatever it's source.
 
Angilion said:
How can you define a test for the other things? If we have to treat religious texts as histories because we can't go back in time and prove the events described in them didn't happen, we also have to treat anything as equally valid if we can't disprove it. An example:

The Illuminati are working with secret agencies in the USA that have access to alien technology. This technology was recovered and investigated in Area 51. Secret agencies used the communications system from a crashed spaceship to initiate contact with the alien civilisation the ship came from. There's a secret treaty between the USA and the aliens. Some people believe that the UK is also a party in this treaty, but that's just a rumour. Restrictions on agents' use of alien or alien-derived technology are much greater than they were in the past, mostly as a result of an incident in which an agent using alien communication technology was filmed during the making of a Charlie Chaplin film.

That is writing describing events of the past. You can't prove it false. Should you take it as history?
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point. A theist doesn't believe any account he's given. He selectively believes what makes sense on a personal level. That may very well disagree with what you think makes sense.

The reason I believe CTs have far less credibility than theists is because I believe their reason for holding their beliefs is flawed. I can't make that judgement on a Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu/whatever because their line of reasoning is something I can't relate to. Clearly religious people have reasons for believing what they do, and those reasons are beyond me. Hardcore CTs, on the other hand, believe what they do either because they want to be "in the know" and superior to people who aren't, or because they hate establishment and want to be justified in doing so.

As for your example, I of course can't prove that it's false, but I can point out that neither you nor anyone else has reason to believe it, so the point is redundant.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
It would be interesting to see Robert Howard's estate sued by the descendants of the Cimmerian King Conan, also known as Conan the Barbarian for asserting he was fictional.....:p
Click to expand...

Admit it you want a ticket to that public gallery :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom