Internet Atheism

[boxman2000]

A better question would be why should religion get a special pass that other equally irrational beliefs don't.

Macro evolution is a faith in something you can't see or prove

Sounds like a belief to me

 

[Hatter The Mad]

And those thing exist because of Christianity!!! Western society is built on christian morals.

No, it isn't built on 'Christian morals' per se.

Western society 'evolved' like all societies evolved - the ability to live in generally accepted harmony to further the human race. Part of that growth, evolution, education, adaptation and refinement was a long history spanning thousands of years which certainly did include Christianity (but also every other belief system, thinker, lawyer, kind and politician going that predated it ).

Sorry, but Christianity does not have 'dibs' on where society is today, morally. It is the sum of all parts.

And by the way, if you want to talk about charities, then well I can tell you all of the corruption that goes on. That money does not help people. It goes straight into the pockets of the administration team.

Yeah... I don't know what you're trying to say, you sound a bit confused and mad, and I can't relate what you're saying to what I did.

I said that we do here 'a peep' out of Christians (etc) in everyday life; through generally accepted encroachment on society.

 

[jahujames]

It is because of this that I firmly believe there can't be a "true" athiest out there. The notion is implanted at a young age and therefore there will always be some inkling in the person's mind about the actual existence of a higher being, whether or not they want to believe it.

Surely a person born on an isolated island, whose parents did not survive and were unable to raise him, who was left with no religious artifacts or knowledge, is eventually going to find their own "god" to help them along. Assuming they survive long enough, of course.

Atheism is not believing, theism is believing.
Agnosticism is not knowing, gnosticism is knowing.

You can be an agnostic atheist.

My point being, being an atheist doesn't stop you from thinking about whether there is a God or not. Nor does it stop you from saying "I'm just not sure, how could I know?" You simply just don't believe in one, because the entire idea doesn't seem to 'fit for you'. The idea that an atheist can't question themselves and must remain resolute in their stance is ridiculous at best... for a lot of atheists it's thanks to that critical thinking that they were "converted" in the first place. All atheists are "true" atheists... and to suggest otherwise suggests a real lack of understanding about what atheism is--and only goes to further distort what this discussion could potentially be... but maybe I expect too much of the internet, now-a-days!

And I don't know about the second part of your point, you're practically making up a scenario in your post to fit your point--so I don't know whether to really take it seriously? And your entire point suggests that "surely a primitive person would invent a God"? We don't live in a primitive age any more (arguably!) so it's entirely irrelevant to suggest that scenario and practically sabotages the point of religion existing in today's society.

 

[inogen]

Atheists don't believe in God yet are always talking about God. People can make up their own minds.

No, they spend some of their time reasoning about "god" with religious nuts.

God only knows why. Pun intended.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Atheism is not believing, theism is believing.
Agnosticism is not knowing, gnosticism is knowing.

You can be an agnostic atheist.

Yes, and agnostic atheist is the most widely accepted (broad) definition: agnostic atheist. A rejection of belief in deities, not a claim to know that one does not exist.

 

[Jason2]

No, they spend some of their time reasoning about "god" with religious nuts.

God only knows why. Pun intended.

Some of their time? People like Dawkins are constantly preaching evolution.

 

[estebanrey]

Macro evolution is a faith in something you can't see or prove

Sounds like a belief to me

What gives you the impression it can't be proven? Not being able to personally witness something happen over a million years doesn't equal unable to prove it exists.

 

[shoes]

What a load of old tosh! Perhaps you'd like to come and call me mentally ill to my face?

Yeah I will, I'll film it too for the youtube thread

Trust me your address and when you're in!

 

[elmarko]

So you can categorically prove religious people wrong, can you? Because if so, I think you need to get on the news or something.

Religion doesn't prove or disprove itself by the same methodology as science, which is why this is the most brain dead, overplayed argument going on the Internet and in reality. It's like saying English is a wrong language because French has the correct grammatical syntax.

It depends on the religious claim.

The one that the earth is 6,000 years old can be proven as false.

The existence of a deity as proposed by most is simple a flawed concept - as it's not even testable & shouldn't even be given the time of day (as any other theory without any evidence would be).

If anything I'm simply advocating treating religion fairly, in the sense of removing the privileged status it receives (socially & politically).

 

[Jason2]

You only have to look at that bus campaign Dawkins participated in. Why would someone go to all that effort? Who really is after control here? It's the atheists.

 

[inogen]

Some of their time? People like Dawkins are constantly preaching evolution.

"Preaching" to religious nuts. I dare say, if he came to mine for tea, "god" would not be a topic of conversation.

 

[jahujames]

Yes, and agnostic atheist is the most widely accepted (broad) definition: agnostic atheist. A rejection of belief in deities, not a claim to know that one does not exist.

Exactly right, my man! Religious people seemingly get the idea that atheism is exclusively walking hand-in-hand with close-mindedness. Which isn't the case at all. Agnostic atheism is what a LOT of atheist's are. They don't proclaim to have the knowledge to answer why they're an atheist. They simply are an atheist. But they're not averse to questioning themselves, nor are they taking anything on faith (see: without evidence!).

A sensible stance if you ask me.

 

[LOAM]

There is nothing to say these services wouldn't be provided anyway, if the tax relief system wasn't there and subsidising their activities.

And certainly, the state should not be providing a blanket subsidy through the tax relief system on the chance that there seems to be 'nothing but indiscriminate, pure good' being done (nor would I want the government to be sole judge and jury on that).

The 'counter to your counter' is that while you and I may be indirectly the good, indiscriminate activities of some churches, we are also subsidising this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21242392 and http://peta.xxx/ and http://www.ukim.org/ and [random rich person's] favourite art gallery, [random rich person's] donation to Eton, etc.

I agree Mr The Mad, you will often get the wheat with the chaff. The point being was that its not all negative and its unfair to claim so, I know of many such outlets in Nottingham that are incredibly non judgemental or religiously biased.

Whether or not these services would exist without the impetus of the church is an unknown. Also its not only religious charities that benefit from gift aid tax relief, they all do.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You only have to look at that bus campaign Dawkins participated in. Why would someone go to all that effort? Who really is after control here? It's the atheists.

They'd go to that effort because religion is an encroachment on society and its general well being. Globally, it is a negative force. People are literally dying or being left to die because of religion.

 

[Jason2]

This is way deeper than theology. This is men who hate God. Men who shake their fists into the face of God and in essence say, we will not submit to you, we will not follow you. These are the men heading straight to Hell.

 

[Theophany]

Atheism is not believing, theism is believing.
Agnosticism is not knowing, gnosticism is knowing.

You can be an agnostic atheist.

My point being, being an atheist doesn't stop you from thinking about whether there is a God or not. Nor does it stop you from saying "I'm just not sure, how could I know?" You simply just don't believe in one, because the entire idea doesn't seem to 'fit for you'. The idea that an atheist can't question themselves and must remain resolute in their stance is ridiculous at best... for a lot of atheists it's thanks to that critical thinking that they were "converted" in the first place. All atheists are "true" atheists... and to suggest otherwise suggests a real lack of understanding about what atheism is--and only goes to further distort what this discussion could potentially be... but maybe I expect too much of the internet, now-a-days!

If you do not believe in a deity, then you believe that the deity does not exist. Belief is the acceptance of a truth (regardless of whether real or perceived), hence the lack of it is, by definition a belief in the opposite in a binary scenario such as 'deity' or 'no deity' (Note to self: great idea for a Noel Edmonds show).

 

[SourChipmunk]

All atheists are "true" atheists... and to suggest otherwise suggests a real lack of understanding about what atheism is--and only goes to further distort what this discussion could potentially be... but maybe I expect too much of the internet, now-a-days!

Strangely, you just made it sound as though it is an organised religion of itself. But I get what you mean.

And I don't know about the second part of your point, you're practically making up a scenario in your post to fit your point--so I don't know whether to really take it seriously? And your entire point suggests that "surely a primitive person would invent a God"? We don't live in a primitive age any more (arguably!) so it's entirely irrelevant to suggest that scenario and practically sabotages the point of religion existing in today's society.

You got the point exactly. Yes, primitive people will invent a God. They have done so. A lot. Unless, of course, you believe they were just plunked down on the Earth as full-grown adults with nothing but a leaf covering their bits.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I agree Mr The Mad, you will often get the wheat with the chaff. The point being was that its not all negative and its unfair to claim so, I know of many such outlets in Nottingham that are incredibly non judgemental or religiously biased.

Whether or not these services would exist without the impetus of the church is an unknown. Also its not only religious charities that benefit from gift aid tax relief, they all do.

I didn't say otherwise, and that's a problem I don't want to subsidise a group that discriminates or furthers what I believe to be backwards and nasty world views, and if that means my state doesn't subsidise causes I do believe in, then so be it.

 

[jahujames]

They'd go to that effort because religion is an encroachment on society and its general well being. Globally, it is a negative force. People are literally dying or being left to die because of religion.

Y'know what I love about that picture... the "probably" part. It's not like he pretends to be infallible.

 

[estebanrey]

Atheism is not believing, theism is believing.
Agnosticism is not knowing, gnosticism is knowing.

You can be an agnostic atheist.

Correct, but I'm sick of saying this so glad you did. I mean it seems obvious to me you have theism then you have atheism, two sides of a coin. You can't then shove 'agnosticism' which is a completely different word, with a different root in between them as a third option.

Furthermore whereas theism/atheism exclusively relate to the belief in a God or gods, agnosticism is just an general word that you can apply to anything. You can be agnostic over the moon landings for example (topical I know ).

As you correctly said.....

Theism/Atheism = Belief
Agnosticism/Gnosticism = Knowledge

...and both sets of terms are not mutually exclusive from one another.