You just contradicted yourself in that statement.
How so?
And you don't have to believe in the said 'ridiculous things'. You can go believe that we evolved from apes or whatever and I can believe in some mystical guy whom nobody has seen.
I'll rephrase this on behalf of Kasic:
Just because people can believe what they want doesn't mean anyone should believe ridiculous things.
It's also worth mentioning that this was already established. What was trying to be said was that there's no reason to belief in said mythical entity and your ability to doesn't constitute a valid enough case for actually believing in it.
I can believe in whatever 'ridiculous' things I want, and you can believe in whatever 'ridiculous' things you want; it's all a matter of perspective.
No, it isn't. Because the way logic works is that it actually makes sense. Where you can understand how everything is there because they're all connected. The car crash accident is a simple example -- two banged up cars, close to each other, on the side of a road. Whilst you could deduce that they crashed, he jumped the simple step of figuring out that they were related in the first place. Considering other conditions, it was the most likely scenario.
Whereas, I guess as the amount of religions there are and of course the good 'ol Pascal's Wager theory specifically, you can see just how illogical it is being as they all stem from a very simple formula (usually -- such as a deity and a prophet) but with nothing directly supporting the exact stories in any way, shape or form.
The car accident example pales in comparison to how all the information we've obtained logically combines into the theories we've developed today based around them. Whilst I could indubitably say that some details are off, and some pieces are missing, the frame of it all is pretty strongly in place.
- The entire framework of religion is based on faith. It isn't there to make sense like evolution, abiogenesis or the Big Bang does.
I don't know why the vast majority of atheists have to rip asunder theistic beliefs.
Because it happens so bluntly, always.
I can say that a lot of atheists are very. . . frivolous towards people they confront, out of some sort of arrogance in how they're supposedly logical and that the person they're talking to is beneath them or something. But a lot of people do it calmly, and productively.
The same way you would correct someone for getting a movie detail they were attempting to describe wrong, or a note in a musical piece -- it's done to help, usually. However even those two examples are quite far off -- considering a lot of theists indeed that target atheistic 'common beliefs' (Big Bang, evolution, et cetera) seem to have no clue on any of the subjects they berate and have clearly not attempted to research them.
Those who have made the effort must be able to see all the way it fits -- and find it a far better option than a religion, no?
Which is why you tend not to have religious people as very scientifically adept personalities for things that would contradict their religion. Even if they were, tragedies can still occur. (There is a video of Richard Dawkins explaining a story about a reliigous person involved in geology, who ended up throwing away his education in university and career because the 'facts' as it were went against his unfounded beliefs. If someone can, please, find a link <3 )
Who cares if you think they're nonsensical and ridiculous,
Everyone who realizes just how less productive they are if they decide to deter from a useful subject because of said stupid beliefs. Sure -- maybe they can reach high capacity somewhere else, and achieve just as much in different ways, however I must say, seriously is not something they could reach with only their other false beliefs.
I'd rather not bring it up, but I'd compare it to my friend who has rhumatoid arthritis -- she can't dance and she can't pursue a phsyically intense career either. Hypothetically -- if she didn't want to dance, then it wouldn't be all bad (however in her case specifically she would've wanted to, but can't), however it's the same restrictions religious people apply to themselves (hindered in a certain field). The difference is that she doesn't have a choice about her capabilities.
In a sense, it's a severe insult to limit yourself like that for your own selfish sense of security.
It's an example that sticks, and happens to be true.
it just starts a completely pointless argument that will never be resolved.
So ignoring a flaw (from my perspective, which from your perspective, is perfectly already to have my perspective even if you disagree with it for the right reasons) is going to make it better? Not just that, but there have been some occasions where it's helped people, and often times whilst they don't accept it at first, the pure and simple questioning of their faith can plant 'seeds of doubt', as it were.
It's not like you atheists are making the theists reconsider religion or you theists are converting the atheists.
You can often find atheists easily swayed, because they're not as knowledgable about any of the subjects and thus choose simply not to believe. I think you'd find that the more scientifically / logically proficient atheists have what could be considered an unwavering stance on the matter, purely because of the sheer amount they could go against (from legitimacy of God being real to philosophy of his actions).
Theists? It's difficult. A lot of them may not accept the truth, straight up. Some will recognize what the other says and not care -- even telling you that. Some will call it complete lies and it's happened where a scientific explanation happened, and you'd find the response "Why would you believe that bag of lies? God is the way, praise Jesus, our Lord and Saviour!" or some sort.
It's often assumed that the most 'stubborn' atheists are the worst. I'd say they're the better;
'
It's not being stubborn if you're right.'
Cheers for the quote, Kasic.
Only animosity and frustration result from this ridiculous topic.
As if that's the intended result? That, and it took me a while to adjust but I don't actually get depressed, frustrated, angered or even 'shot down' on morale when I see these threads and quite often the monotonous invalid arguments being waged (not necessarily from just the theists' "side"
.
I think religion is the most pointless topic on these forums.
Being as it pertains to the meaning of life, the origination of life and the universe in fact, I'm surprised you couldn't see how other people would see it. The debates are about massive things that go beyond the parochial scope of, say, politics. It's an objective understanding that can enhance and expand our capabilities.
Don't get me wrong - it's more than possible that politics in this scenario is more practical / productive, but just as easily a flame war, and for someone like me who's been on the forums since the age of 12 (baring witness to it since the age of 9, I believe), it's actually really helped stimulate my mental skills, motivation and career plans.
Good day, Wyrzen.
- H
