Atheists, a few questions to you...

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Thor

With my own badly worded question I intended to ask Atheists IF they would in their own life allow circumcision, baptism, weddings in a church, IF it was for them. Not if it was for others. I will personally not miss such events for family and friends simply out of belief even though I'm 100% sure they all understand I am there for them, not the religion.

I was baptised when I was a baby, so I didn't have much say. I will not be baptising my children. If they chose to be baptised into a religion when they are older I would be fine with it. Because it is their choice.

My daughter goes to Catholic school. Even though nobody in our family is Catholic. Why? Because it is two blocks away. When she is old enough for middle school in 2 years she will be going to a public school. Because it is 2 blocks away.

As for circumcision? I was circumcised when I was a baby. I am very thankfull that my parents had it done when I was a baby. Seven months ago I had my baby son circumcised. It wasn't even a debate in my house.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Have you (as predicated by your stance) got some sort of scientific backing that there is no god?

Can't be done. Prove to me that that there is no bigfoot. Prove to me that there is no tooth fairy. Prove to me that there is no Freddy Kruger.

Truth, by definition, is 'undisputible fact' or 'conformity with reality'. It deals in looking at what can be proven by scientific method and confirmed by impirical observation.

Untruth is saying "Xenu came from planet XYZ and embedded the souls of alien races into volcanoes on earth. Prove me wrong. NANANANANAA."

[photon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Religion is not a slope down to agnosticism. Agnosticism is non-religious. A better representation might be a sort of U-shaped graph moving from religious extremism on one side down to agnosticism in the middle, and up to atheistic extremism on the other. Atheism and theism are alike in that they are both faith-based positions, agnosticism is not.

How can the absence of believe be a faith based position. Atheism isn't the blind belief (faith) that there is no God, it's the default position taken by a rational person when there's no evidence.

Does a believer in God have faith there is no Zeus? No, they simply don't believe there is a Zeus because there's no indication that Zeus exists.

I would say agnosticism is MORE faith based than Atheism, since an agnostic believes that the nature of God is inherently unknowable, not based on any evidence but just by faith that it's the nature of reality.

I would say religion is more about faith and values. How can you say religion is about not critically challenging things when many of the people responsible for scientific progress are religious people?

I agree, religion is about faith and values.

But religion is based on faith, not evidence. By definition faith is belief without evidence in the authority of something; dogma. So religion isn't about critically challenging things.

The fact that some scientific people are religious is as meaningful as the fact that some religious people are murderers.. It's not a cause and effect relationship. And the amount of religious people in science and such are lower than in the general public.

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Exactly what is this truth you speak of?

Have you (as predicated by your stance) got some sort of scientific backing that there is no god?

Or do you hold yourself to a lower standard than those that choose to believe in a supreme being?

The hypocrisy is brilliant.

I think when he says "truth" he's talking about things which we can demonstrate as true through testing, observation, prediction of theories, etc.. science.

Atheism isn't belief there is no God, it's the default position with a lack of evidence.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that a theist beliefs despite lack of evidence, where an atheist doesn't believe because of a lack of evidence. If a theist is presented with contrary evidence they usually don't change their mind, while a atheist should be fully willing to change their position if new evidence is presented.

[Cheese]

Everyone is an Atheist....I just take my atheism one God further.

Richard Dawkins

[llama64]

Originally Posted by photon

How can the absence of believe be a faith based position. Atheism isn't the blind belief (faith) that there is no God, it's the default position taken by a rational person when there's no evidence.

I would say agnosticism is MORE faith based than Atheism, since an agnostic believes that the nature of God is inherently unknowable, not based on any evidence but just by faith that it's the nature of reality.

I'd argue for the opposite case.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Science hasn't demonstrated there is a God so therefore there is no god. But Science also hasn't ruled out the possibility of God. This leaves the Atheist with what constitutes as a belief.

Agnostics are similar to Atheists except that they will not declare that god does not exist because there is no evidence to state such. Instead, they leave open the possibility since that seems to be what reality presents according to all accounts.

Personally I tend towards Agnosticism since it fits my overall approach to gaining knowledge better. Most "Atheists" I know tend to be nearly as irritating as door to door Mormons in trying to spread their belief system. Atheism somehow as taken on the mantle of a movement if not a religion. Agnostics just don't give a damn.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Exactly what is this truth you speak of?

Have you (as predicated by your stance) got some sort of scientific backing that there is no god?

Or do you hold yourself to a lower standard than those that choose to believe in a supreme being?

The hypocrisy is brilliant.

Truth comes in many flavors. My interpretation of his meaning of truth is such.

"the body of real things, events, and facts"

That is what most people consider to be the truth, and that which any parent expects their child to abide by when a demand of truthful explanation is laid at their feet.

The big question that immediately jumps to mind the milli-second I read your response was:

Have you got some sort of scientific backing that there is a god?

Because to date, there has been no accepted proof offered up for the existence of a supreme being, nor the existence of his only given son, Jesus Christ. Every time someone does attempt to bring forth proof of the existence of suce a person it is immediately dismissed by the many forms of Christianity. You wish to speak of hypocrisy, look no further than the position of the these religious structures. And that's without really examining whether those "Christians" live up to the "Christian ideals" they so readily toss around as their measuring stick.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Everyone is an Atheist....I just take my atheism one God further.

Richard Dawkins

Cheese!!! Welcome back!!!

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by photon

How can the absence of believe be a faith based position. Atheism isn't the blind belief (faith) that there is no God, it's the default position taken by a rational person when there's no evidence.

My response to this would be the same as llama's.

There is no proof of the correctness of religious belief, nor is there proof of the correctness of atheistic belief. There is a subtle difference between not believing in something vs. believing not something. Also, I would not go so far as to say that atheism is a natural, rational default. Given that proof cannot be given either way, but there have been countless individual accounts of religious experience some might argue that the more rational default position (if one were forced to take a position) would be to accept some form of religious belief. Personally, seeing as we're not forced to take a position, I would say an admittance that you can't know either way and so refusing to either believe or refute (agnosticism) is a reasonable choice.

Anyways, atheism is faith based because it is a belief in a positive statement (there is no god) which cannot be supported by evidence.

But religion is based on faith, not evidence. By definition faith is belief without evidence in the authority of something; dogma. So religion isn't about critically challenging things.

I didn't say that religion was about critically challenging things. He did say that religion is about not challenging things critically. My point was that religion is not about avoiding challenging things critically, that a person may be religious and still challenge things critically without being in conflict with their faith and spiritual belief.

Atheism isn't belief there is no God, it's the default position with a lack of evidence.

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude or condescending on this. I just wanted to clarify, so that semantics aren't a problem in the debate.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that a theist beliefs despite lack of evidence, where an atheist doesn't believe because of a lack of evidence. If a theist is presented with contrary evidence they usually don't change their mind, while a atheist should be fully willing to change their position if new evidence is presented.

That's just stereotyping. I'm sure there are many theists who would be willing to abandon their faith if it could be proven that their faith was misplaced, just as I'm sure there are many atheist who would be willing to change their minds in the face of proof. I would also think that there are many theists and atheists who would not be willing to change their opinions in the face of proof. Either way, it's not a big deal cause there isn't going to be any proof either way on the big questions of spirituality and religion vs. atheism.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

That's just stereotyping. I'm sure there are many theists who would be willing to abandon their faith if it could be proven that their faith was misplaced, just as I'm sure there are many atheist who would be willing to change their minds in the face of proof. I would also think that there are many theists and atheists who would not be willing to change their opinions in the face of proof. Either way, it's not a big deal cause there isn't going to be any proof either way on the big questions of spirituality and religion vs. atheism.

Then answer this question:

What would make you stop believing in god?

Most theists cannot answer this question.


What would make you start believing in god?

Most atheists CAN answer this question.

[Sparks]

Good questions. I've wondered some of the same things myself, so it's been great reading the responses.

1. Are you vocal about your atheism or do you shy away when religious discussion occur?

I try to keep my thoughts to myself when I'm around religious people (or people I don't know) out of respect for their beliefs. I know it's a positive thing in many people's lives, so I'll leave it at that. But, if I'm asked about what I believe, I'm quite happy to share.

2. Do you politely agree to baptisms, circumcisions, weddings in churches, etc.. In order to appease religious family or societal pressures?

Sure. I wouldn't do that myself, but similar to what someone else said in this thread, my relationship with those people is much more important than my disagreement with what they believe.

3. Considering the state of the world today with radicalism in religion from the USA to Iran at a noticeably growing rate, do you feel more responsibility to speak your beliefs and fight to spread atheism to friends/family?

To my friends and family? Nah. There are more important fish to fry. I doubt that getting my friends and family to give up their beliefs is going to make a bit of difference. It's more important that people think critically on world issues, and the vast majority of religious people are quite capable of that.

4. Are you as an Atheist looking for a more focused plan and leadership online or locally to focus your efforts? Or would you prefer to not be involved in any Atheistic movements?

Not a bit. I would like it if people were less concerned about revealing that they are atheists, though - if only to get rid of the stigma.

5. Finally, are you optimistic that hundred's of years from now religion will be much less of an influence on this world or are you of the belief that we are going to be under religious influence for a long long time to come?

Well, I would argue that the western world is going in that direction (except for the United States). That's great. I can't say I'm optimistic, though.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Then answer this question:

What would make you stop believing in god?

Most theists cannot answer this question.


What would make you start believing in god?

Most atheists CAN answer this question.

Just to be a stickler, no they can't. Because they wouldn't have to believe, they would know.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My response to this would be the same as llama's.

There is no proof of the correctness of religious belief, nor is there proof of the correctness of atheistic belief. There is a subtle difference between not believing in something vs. believing not something. Also, I would not go so far as to say that atheism is a natural, rational default. Given that proof cannot be given either way, but there have been countless individual accounts of religious experience some might argue that the more rational default position (if one were forced to take a position) would be to accept some form of religious belief. Personally, seeing as we're not forced to take a position, I would say an admittance that you can't know either way and so refusing to either believe or refute (agnosticism) is a reasonable choice.

Anyways, atheism is faith based because it is a belief in a positive statement (there is no god) which cannot be supported by evidence.

I didn't say that religion was about critically challenging things. He did say that religion is about not challenging things critically. My point was that religion is not about avoiding challenging things critically, that a person may be religious and still challenge things critically without being in conflict with their faith and spiritual belief.

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude or condescending on this. I just wanted to clarify, so that semantics aren't a problem in the debate.

That's just stereotyping. I'm sure there are many theists who would be willing to abandon their faith if it could be proven that their faith was misplaced, just as I'm sure there are many atheist who would be willing to change their minds in the face of proof. I would also think that there are many theists and atheists who would not be willing to change their opinions in the face of proof. Either way, it's not a big deal cause there isn't going to be any proof either way on the big questions of spirituality and religion vs. atheism.

I hate to inform you but....this is a typical Straw Man argument.
It is the position of "theists" that there is a God. There are literally hundreds of Gods that have been or are being worshipped, you worship one of those. It is therefore in your court to prove your position, not the atheist to disprove you.
It takes "faith" to believe in the unbelievable. Atheists are not faith based.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by llama64

Just to be a stickler, no they can't. Because they wouldn't have to believe, they would know.

That isn't true.

Some might decide to chalk up the appearance of a lake of fire, demons and swarms of locusts as some perverse alien invasion or mind control weapon. While others might believe in god if much lesser miracles happened.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Thor

... (even though many of you mispell it!) ...

HA HA! Brilliant!

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Then answer this question:

What would make you stop believing in god?

Most theists cannot answer this question.


What would make you start believing in god?

Most atheists CAN answer this question.

Do you have anything to show that your statements regarding theists and atheists are not just more stereotyping? It hardly seems fair of you to answer the questions on their behalf.

Either way, I would say that the nature of the beliefs makes it much easier for an atheist to answer that question. If I wrongly believed there was no such thing as a unicorn, all it would take to prove me wrong would be to show me a unicorn. If I wrongly believed in a unicorn however, it would be a lot harder to think of some practical proof that could be offered demonstrating that nowhere in the entire universe or in potential other dimensions is there a unicorn. The ease of answering one question and the difficulty of answering the other doesn't affect the correctness of the belief.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Exactly what is this truth you speak of?

Have you (as predicated by your stance) got some sort of scientific backing that there is no god?

Or do you hold yourself to a lower standard than those that choose to believe in a supreme being?

The hypocrisy is brilliant.

Actually it is entirely up to those who "believe" to prove the existence of their specific God...as they wish the masses to believe. So the question should be...I believe in "Thor, Zeuss, God, Mohammed, Brahma, Shiva, Krishna" because I have proof of the same. Otherwise it is simply "faith". If the standards of those who believe without proof are greater than those who desire proof to believe, then so be it.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the believer?

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Do you have anything to show that your statements regarding theists and atheists are not just more stereotyping? It hardly seems fair of you to answer the questions on their behalf.

Either way, I would say that the nature of the beliefs makes it much easier for an atheist to answer that question. If I wrongly believed there was no such thing as a unicorn, all it would take to prove me wrong would be to show me a unicorn. If I wrongly believed in a unicorn however, it would be a lot harder to think of some practical proof that could be offered demonstrating that nowhere in the entire universe or in potential other dimensions is there a unicorn. The ease of answering one question and the difficulty of answering the other doesn't affect the correctness of the belief.

There were Unicorns. They ignored Noah and didn't get on the Arc. I also believe Griffins and Centaurs also refused to get the Arc as well.

[transplant99]

Have you got some sort of scientific backing that there is a god?

Nope...do you have any there isn't?

See this works both ways contrary to what many say.

Anyone can believe in anything they want (or not as may be the case) without having to "prove" it is real. It's kind of tough to prove a belief anyhow...that's why it's a belief to begin with.

Because to date, there has been no accepted proof offered up for the existence of a supreme being,

Maybe not for you and the non-believers, but for millions, maybe billions more, there has been plenty. Your definition of what that "proof" must or may be, makes not a lick of difference to someone else.

nor the existence of his only given son, Jesus Christ. Every time someone does attempt to bring forth proof of the existence of suce a person it is immediately dismissed by the many forms of Christianity

Interesting you say this as there are claims by several individuals throughout human history that they were indeed a direct descendant from their particular god...I think you are showing your true colors here Lanny. Christianity is not the only religion around dude, and certainly not the only one who professes to follow a supreme being.

And that's without really examining whether those "Christians" live up to the "Christian ideals" they so readily toss around as their measuring stick

Again with hammering christianity. That's fine, I don't follow the religion myself. I do wonder though if you truly believe that the vast majority of those who do are really not living to their "christian" ideals. I would venture to guess that most of them are humble hard-working people who put priorities on the important things in life. But hey, stero-typing an entire group for the acts of a few is a longtime human pastime.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Do you have anything to show that your statements regarding theists and atheists are not just more stereotyping? It hardly seems fair of you to answer the questions on their behalf.

Because that is the way reality works. It is a lot easier to answer the question based on reason and logic than it is to answer that question based on faith.

I'm not even sure why you typed the first part of your response, because the only thing you do is go on further to qualify my response to you.

Either way, I would say that the nature of the beliefs makes it much easier for an atheist to answer that question. If I wrongly believed there was no such thing as a unicorn, all it would take to prove me wrong would be to show me a unicorn. If I wrongly believed in a unicorn however, it would be a lot harder to think of some practical proof that could be offered demonstrating that nowhere in the entire universe or in potential other dimensions is there a unicorn. The ease of answering one question and the difficulty of answering the other doesn't affect the correctness of the belief.

I never questioned the correctness of your belief or that of theists, just simply pointed out the flaw in your statement.