We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → atheism.
| 150 | 16409 |
Atheism is a fast growing movement in the world which i think is fantastic! what do you think? should it be pushed?
- 150 Replies
Well, argueing against religion and for atheism are the same thing. Atheism is not believing in any religion so argueing against religion is argueing for atheism.
Religion exists, its the gods we don't believe in....
Well, argueing against religion and for atheism are the same thing. Atheism is not believing in any religion so argueing against religion is argueing for atheism.
No it's not..
You don't convert to atheism or anything, so how can you possibly argue for it, it's just the default stance for many people, some people don't even care about religion or deity's, and they're atheists. It isn't limited to just the people who do argue against it.
Anyway, tell me more about some of this 'evidence' religion puts on the table.
Anyway, tell me more about some of this 'evidence' religion puts on the table
Hey, i didn't say it was solid evidence. I guess that the only evidence (argue whether its evidence or not, i don't care) is the bible and whatever science does not explain(how does simple matter turn into life, a being with movement and a purpose). By all means, I'm an atheist, but i try to respect all sides so i guess i give the other side too much credit.
I notice that a lot of arguemnets boil down to the religious saying "You cannot disprove god!" and the atheists saying "You cannot prove that he exists!". Neither of these make anything true or false. I also notice that agnostics get bashed a lot, called the ***** form of atheists. This sort of gets to me, because faith is a hard decision that takes time to make, and no matter how much evidence you put on the table, neither side is concrete. Eventually you should pick a side though, at least for peace of mind.
And you get wiser my friend.
I dont know how much history you have been thought, but all those things you mentioned happened hundreds of years ago. You're comparing Apples and Oranges there.
Promoting inequality (gay marriage for example), spreading harmful lies such as condoms cause AIDS, child molestation, these are all recent things.
Atheism.
A - without
Theism - Religion.
Close, theism is belief in a god or gods, not religion. You can hold a religion and still be an atheist, such as many forms of Buddhism for example.
I notice that a lot of arguemnets boil down to the religious saying "You cannot disprove god!" and the atheists saying "You cannot prove that he exists!".
Which are fallacious statements. If there is no God then of course there is no proof, you can't prove a negative, you can only prove something exists. Since the claim is that God exists, then they should be able to prove this to be true.
I also notice that agnostics get bashed a lot, called the ***** form of atheists.
Agnosticism isn't a form of atheism. Since I'm always having to explain this here's a video.
Atheist or Agnostic
This sort of gets to me, because faith is a hard decision that takes time to make, and no matter how much evidence you put on the table, neither side is concrete. Eventually you should pick a side though, at least for peace of mind.
I don't see the point of faith. As for being concrete many atheists don't claim this. We see no evidence for a deity as such find it unlikely one exists. Further more when we have investigated many of the things often attributed to being the work of a deity we find other more likely causes and that even if a deity had a hand (or noodle) in it, they wouldn't have been needed.
I guess that the only evidence (argue whether its evidence or not, i don't care) is the bible and whatever science does not explain(how does simple matter turn into life, a being with movement and a purpose).
The Bible is as much evidence for God as Harry Potter is evidence of Dementors.
As for what science can not explain this is call the god of the gaps argument and it's a fallacy to use as an argument for god, since if we don't know how something happened then all we can honestly say is "we don't know".
BTW we have explained how simple chemicals could form into self replicating molecules.
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
Not sure what you mean by purpose, but once self replicating molecules came onto the scene evolution was able to take over allowing among other things movement to develop.
@MageGrayWolf
Thanks for the link. The more info the better.
There is one issue I have with atheism. It's stong reliance on science.
Yes, I am believer. I am a conservative catholic. but I can see exodus for what it is - a metaphor, and see no contradiction between religion and evolution.
So you can't exactly accuse me of being narrow minded.
But I feel that science is by it's own nature, empirical. This means that what science says is right, will only be right until it is disproves, and relaced by another theory. i.e. nothing is concrete, nothing is fully, without a doubt, true. yet you try to disprove God with these rules, and attack churches with what you recognise as an empirical science.
plato's cave is the best anology for this ( I won't explain it here, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave] )
Reality is only your perception of reality. it is only what you interpret as reality. So science may be false, not grounded in anything but our perceptions. yet you are quite willing to turn this upon us. and you call us narrow minded! how about a good old quote from the bible:
"first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Yes, I am believer. I am a conservative catholic. but I can see exodus for what it is - a metaphor, and see no contradiction between religion and evolution.
Then you dont actually believe what is in the bible. Yes, I think narrow minded and defensive springs to mind with ease.
There is one issue I have with atheism. It's stong reliance on science.
While many atheists do rely on scientific methods atheism itself is not reliant on science. There can be unscientific and even spiritual reasons for being an atheist.
But I feel that science is by it's own nature, empirical. This means that what science says is right, will only be right until it is disproves, and relaced by another theory. i.e. nothing is concrete, nothing is fully, without a doubt, true.
Yes there are only degrees of truth not absolutes. Holding the belief that your particular holy book is absolute truth doesn't make it so.
yet you try to disprove God with these rules, and attack churches with what you recognise as an empirical science.
You can't prove a negative. So no we are not trying to disprove God. Also how is pointing out logical flaws an attack?
Reality is only your perception of reality. it is only what you interpret as reality. So science may be false, not grounded in anything but our perceptions. yet you are quite willing to turn this upon us. and you call us narrow minded!
So if I believe a blue pen is red despite the the light wavelength measured from it being in the blue spectrum and others observations of the pen indicate that it is blue. Would that mean in reality I'm right and everyone else and the objective tests are wrong, or would it mean my perceptions of the pen are faulty? Which conclusion would be narrow minded, the one with all the evidence backing it or the one that agrees with my personal belief?
"first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
I would say it is the theists who have the planks in their eyes.
Then you dont actually believe what is in the bible. Yes, I think narrow minded and defensive springs to mind with ease.
Not completely true. Its called progressive creationism. Evolution took place but God was in control of it. Also that the six days of creation weren't actual 24 hour days rather millions of years. I don't believe it myself, I believe that God created the Earth in the space of six 34 hour days.
Yes, I am believer. I am a conservative catholic. but I can see exodus for what it is - a metaphor, and see no contradiction between religion and evolution.
Then what are we not to consider to be metaphor in the Bible? We could just as easily regard God as a metaphor. Also by relegating Adam and Eve to a metaphor would mean Jesus died to absolve the human race of something that never actually happened.
Then what are we not to consider to be metaphor in the Bible? We could just as easily regard God as a metaphor
Exactly, obviosly his faith is very loose. True Christians recognize the Bible as an absolute truth. It is what is no strings attached (or metaphors).
Not completely true. Its called progressive creationism.
It also takes a great stretch of the mind and a huge leap of faith in someone else's writing to believe that. Did you read it somewhere? I reckon so. So did most other people who might believe that and strangely enuf once again we see men believing the word of men over actual experience.
As for your own belief, you are welkomm to it comrade.
[quote]Yes, I am believer. I am a conservative catholic. but I can see exodus for what it is - a metaphor, and see no contradiction between religion and evolution.
Then what are we not to consider to be metaphor in the Bible?[/quote]
Im not even giving him the benefit of doubt mage.
Did you read it somewhere?
I actually learned about it and discussed it in my science and logic classes last year.
You must be logged in to post a reply!