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.
- Why do you take an emblem people worship and disrespect it? It’s really rude, and frankly it’s fucked up.
- Why is your thing “believe in yourself” ? It is possible to believe in a higher being and believe in yourself.
1. Well, while not every atheist ‘takes an emblem people worship and disrespect it’ I think what you might refer to as ‘blasphemy’ is useful in that it makes some people who never thought to challenge their religious indoctrination question what it is they’ve been trained to defend. Maybe it’ll bring them back to the question they were taught to avoid as children: Is god real? Any adult mind not polluted with fear should arrive at the obvious answer.
2. To attribute a quality to someone with no justification and then oppose it is a logical flaw known as a “straw-man argument.” That’s precisely what you’re guilty of here. However, taking a nuanced view and simplifying it, believing in ones self is preferable to believing in a god because the consequences of your actions are real and can be experienced in reality, whereas belief in a god is often contingent upon superstitiously believing that a creature from another dimension (or whatever) is communicating with you through vague interpretations of happenstance.
3. You’ve sure got a lot of gall thinking you speak for every religion, considering there are several religions that don’t even believe in a god.
Every Christmas for the past 60 years, Nativity scenes have dominated two blocks of a park on bluffs overlooking the ocean in Santa Monica, California.
The 14 scenes depicting Jesus Christ’s birth have long been a popular attraction among area residents and tourists to the southern California city.
This year, however, atheists have taken over most of the two-block stretch, nearly shutting out and angering a group of churches who contend the atheists have organized against the Christians and gamed a city lottery process allocating the holiday exhibit space.
Tax-free, rapist-protecting, politically-active churches hate when people game the system. It threatens their record.
Well, let me tell you a story: When I was in highschool some upperclassmen atheists decided to bring a bible to school, shred it up, and eat it with chips and salsa. Tell me again how atheists don’t do stupid stuff because of religion.
1) I don’t believe your stupid story
2) Even if it were true, so the fuck what? Someone ate a book and you’ve got some crybaby problem with it? Call me back when someone flies a plane into a building because they were convinced atheism wanted them to.
3) The book-eaters in your story didn’t act out of religious belief, they acted, seemingly, out of aggression, hunger and pure coolness. No, but seriously, there’s no part of atheism that says one ought to use your digestive system to demonstrate a point. However, there is a part of Christianity that says, if god asks you to murder your own child you fucking do it. There’s a story about it in the Bible and there are frequent cases of people murdering their children and then claiming to have heard the voice of their Christian god asking them to. How is a Christian to know the difference between a spiritual communication from god and a schizophrenic delusion? No one ever tells the schizophrenic his suspicion that he’s being abducted by aliens is real, but there are entire tax-free, babysitting, unduly-trusted institutions set up to tell him angels and devils and gods are real.
You know why you never heard the voice of god come and ask you to kill someone? Because you’re not schizophrenic. If someone told you that happened to them, you’d think they were schizophrenic. Why do you accept it when it’s a Bible story? Because deep in the suppressed part of your mind, you know it’s not true.