You know, the ones that think that they’ve got reason on their side. Who constantly make jabs at those who are religious. Belittling them for their belief in God(s).
Well, the important thing is you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.
The thing is, Atheism requires…
Waw, was not expecting such a snide response!
If you’d taken the time to read my little piece objectively you might not have fallen back on trying to suggest things about my character.
Since you’ve broken mine down, I’ll do the same.
“Well, the important thing is you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.”
- I feel superior to certain atheists only in as much as I don’t use reason to argue for something that cannot be empirically proven. No where did I suggest that I was a better person.
“That’s not what atheism is, but thanks a lot for miscasting my views, it shows me you have an uneducated opinion that doesn’t matter.”
- Although I’ll admit to not knowing everything there is to know about atheism, I believe that i’m correct in stating that at the centre of atheism is the belief that God (as a supernatural deity, creator) does not exist. Where I can fully recognise that there will be many different beliefs that all fit under the umbrella of atheism, I also believe that they all have this fundamental belief in common.
“So, you’re going to define a god into existence? Can he be made of pasta?”
- Here, it seems, you’ve completely misunderstood what I said. You’ll notice that I’ve stated that the idea that an an all knowing, all powerful, all good God is logically inconsistent because it does not fit with what we observe in the world. I do not see how the Flying Spaghetti Monster reference applies to this.
“Actually atheists do have the logical “high ground,” but since you don’t really know what atheism is, you probably wouldn’t understand that.”
- As I have said, the belief that a God does not exist does seems to be a fundamental one for most atheists. And while I would praise most for arguing against the seemingly illogical arguments for God’s existence, I would still accuse them of not maintaining a logical high ground if they use these arguments to prove that God does not exist.
What I will say is that when I say ‘arsey’ and ‘debatey’ atheists, I am not referring to all atheists. I am simply referring to those I have known (from personal experience) who attempt to thrust an opinion on you when you don’t want it thrust on you. The tendency for them to be an arse or ‘debatey’ is independent of them being atheist.
All the question of God’s existence can essentially boil down to is opinion, as it seems we cannot use reason to gain knowledge of his/her existence or non-existence. That is my point in a nutshell.
Also, personal attacks, insults, and implying the person you’re arguing against is stupid is childish and extremely counterproductive when you are trying to have a reasoned discussions.
I hope that’s cleared up any issues you had with my wee piece :)
Alright, here’s the slightly less snide response: You don’t know what atheism means. I know, you’ve got some childish idea, probably taught to you by a church or by church-going people, that atheism is the positive claim, the assertion that no gods exist. However, that’s no more the case than it is the case that people who aren’t convinced that bigfoot exists are positively asserting no such creature exists. They’re not asserting there’s no bigfoot, they just don’t believe there is. You’re operating under the false dichotomy that one either believes god is real or believes god is fake. That’s not correct. One either believes god is real or one does not believe that. Just because one does not believe that does not mean he or she believes that no gods exist. I know what you’re thinking, ::in whiny voice:: “BUT THAT’S AGNOSTIC!” to which I now am forced to reply: NO IT FUCKING ISN’T!
I suggest you go to some atheist sources and learn about what you’re talking about before making a further fool of yourself, not to be snide.
…maybe to be a little snide, but it helps the lesson stick.