UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not religious in the normal sense and don't buy into any of the religious stupidity that goes on but it amazes me that so called science worshippers have such a closed mind to the possibility that there is more to this life than what we understand with our five senses.

I have far from a closed mind, for all I know we could be like ants and some kid built our anthill. But I do feel extremely safe(100% actually) in saying that "God" didn't have a child from a virgin (Yes.. Jesus was a fake), Allah, angels, miracles or any other fairytales.

Sorry to offend anyone but IMO anyone that can truly believe in such rubbish are either low in IQ or are so afraid to die without living on they "have" to believe (dumb in itself)...to believe in a religious God shows a true "closed mind".

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well I guess if you believe in that part of the Bible. Myself I just think it was added to gain uneducated believers or was put in because the authors couldn't explain the events, and they had little to do with Jesus' teachings.

Doesn't really matter if it has little to do with his teachings.

In fact I would say you'd be in the extreme minority to suggest that Jesus didn't actually perform miracles. It would actually call into question the entire validity of the text.

And I must admit I'm a little confused by your posts as well, if Jesus did not perform miracles (as you don't really believe yourself), wouldn't that lend more credence to people 'worshiping at the alter of science' as you so put it?

Wouldn't that favor a naturalist explanation of the Universe and the world we live in?

It just seems those 2 points you are trying to make are in conflict.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by T@T

I have far from a closed mind, for all I know we could be like ants and some kid built our anthill. But I do feel extremely safe(100% actually) in saying that "God" didn't have a child from a virgin (Yes.. Jesus was a fake), Allah, angels, miracles or any other fairytales.

Sorry to offend anyone but IMO anyone that can truly believe in such rubbish are either low in IQ or are so afraid to die without living on they "have" to believe (dumb in itself)...to believe in a religious God shows a true "closed mind".

Gee, I can't imagine how anyone would be offended by that (bolded part).

I laugh at those who are absolutely certain on both sides of this debate. Truth is, no one knows, although folks on both sides are completely, absolutely, totally certain; clearly, both can't be right so one side of the 100% certain is 100% wrong. Yeah, that includes you for saying you're 100% certain that Jesus was a fake.

[photon]

Certainty is elusive (see my sig), however you can still be less or more confident about conclusions based on available information.

If you saw a hoofprint in your yard, it could be a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn print. All options are not impossible, but they are not all equally probable. That's why merely not impossible isn't good enough to constitute a foundation for a conclusion.

And I don't think that someone has to be of low IQ or simply fear death to believe; I think that vastly oversimplifies the reasons behind religious belief.

[MarchHare]

I laugh at those who are absolutely certain on both sides of this debate. Truth is, no one knows, although folks on both sides are completely, absolutely, totally certain; clearly, both can't be right so one side of the 100% certain is 100% wrong. Yeah, that includes you for saying you're 100% certain that Jesus was a fake.

Most (all?) rational atheists will not claim with absolute certainty that there is no god, only that there is no natural evidence in favour of one's existence and the probability of there actually being one is very small (but not zero). The likelihood of the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible existing is even smaller still, but again the possibility cannot be 100% ruled out.

All that said, in the absence of any natural evidence for a god, it is intellectually dishonest to believe that one exists. While I certainly find the notion of eternal life and salvation after death to be very comforting indeed, there is absolutely zero reason to legitimately believe that this actually happens. I also find the notion of a jolly old man who flies around the world delivering toys to children to be a comforting thought, but no rational person would claim to legitimately believe in Santa Claus just because the idea is pleasing to them.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Cheese. The guy took the "leap of faith". When I was doing by Astro-physics degree the Math we were doing was all about the big bang. Nothing existed before that.

So.....how did it start. What WAS the big bang? Out of no where? Nothingness to somethingness? WTF? No way!

When and how did it all start? Like most Physicists we are looking to discover GOD. Or the beginning. THE ANSWER.

Sorry to see you are so bitter about Christians. I suggest Buddhism to calm your soul, especially Zen. You won't be so angry if you can appreciate something other than yourself.

wow you are one angry dude Hoz...sorry for you.
I certainly don't have any answers, but Im thinking that theists certainly believe they do...otherwise they wouldn't teach their children to believe at such early ages.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Gee, I can't imagine how anyone would be offended by that (bolded part).

I laugh at those who are absolutely certain on both sides of this debate. Truth is, no one knows, although folks on both sides are completely, absolutely, totally certain; clearly, both can't be right so one side of the 100% certain is 100% wrong. Yeah, that includes you for saying you're 100% certain that Jesus was a fake.

One thing I'm always curious about, and maybe it has already been answered, but what if you believe in the wrong god, will you be punished for that? How is that any different from not believing at all?

I'm personally not willing to commit to any particular reason why we are here because I don't believe there is enough evidence to say 100%. The world, solar system and universe is far too big to commit to being an atheist, however I feel like there is far too little evidence to believe in any religion we have on earth today.

I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" where I feel atheists/agnostics and religious folk feel it's there way or no way, you are wrong and I am right type attitude.

[MarchHare]

I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" where I feel atheists/agnostics and religious folk feel it's there way or no way[/b], you are wrong and I am right type attitude.

Your characterization of atheists is incorrect, and your admitted "I don't know" attitude actually makes you an atheist whether you wish to accept that label or not.

As I mentioned above, very few (if any) atheists will assert with 100% certainty that there is no god (not even Richard Dawkins would make that claim). Atheism is the lack of belief in a god given the absence of natural evidence; it is not a staunch belief that there absolutely, positively is no god.

[Thor]

Or put another way, we feel like Theists the same way about Thor, Odin, Krisna, etc.. the way we feel about the one God you follow.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

I have far from a closed mind, for all I know we could be like ants and some kid built our anthill. But I do feel extremely safe(100% actually) in saying that "God" didn't have a child from a virgin (Yes.. Jesus was a fake), Allah, angels, miracles or any other fairytales.

Sorry to offend anyone but IMO anyone that can truly believe in such rubbish are either low in IQ or are so afraid to die without living on they "have" to believe (dumb in itself)...to believe in a religious God shows a true "closed mind".

Wow, sounds like a personal attack aimed at me but just so you know, I agree with most of what you said and I'd put it in the 'religious stupidity' category which I mentioned. As I've also said, I'm not a christian or any other religious follower, I've been shown my own way to relate to what I call god.

On the other hand I have no problem thinking that Jesus and Allah were teachers of their time but a lot of their simple teaching has been lost, misunderstood, and changed for the gain of the those in power. I look at it as a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff but than again I don't rely on whether they once lived or not as faith isn't a part of what I do.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Your characterization of atheists is incorrect, and your admitted "I don't know" attitude actually makes you an atheist whether you wish to accept that label or not.

In my opinion, and many others, Atheism is the rejection of religion with certainty nothing such as god exisits, I'm not rejecting anything. I'm actually open to anything where there is proof, and there isn't a religion out there that has shown proof more than books that have too many flaws in them. For example the bible stating the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

It just seems to me religious people follow what they are told to be the truth from thousands of years of stories, and if a game like telephone taught me anything when I was in grade 1 it's that stories change everytime they are told and who knows how exagreated they got by the time they were put into text (bible). I have an open mind, I'm willing to accept god, buddah, allah, or whoever with enough evidence, just as I'm willing to reject them with enough, either case doesn't have enough evidence. If that makes me an atheist in your eyes so be it, but as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to admit there is no answer right now and for all I know we are living in the Matrix.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hilch

In my opinion, and many others, Atheism is the rejection of religion with certainty nothing such as god exisits, I'm not rejecting anything. I'm actually open to anything where there is proof, and there isn't a religion out there that has shown proof more than books that have too many flaws in them. For example the bible stating the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

It just seems to me religious people follow what they are told to be the truth from thousands of years of stories, and if a game like telephone taught me anything when I was in grade 1 it's that stories change everytime they are told and who knows how exagreated they got by the time they were put into text (bible). I have an open mind, I'm willing to accept god, buddah, allah, or whoever with enough evidence, just as I'm willing to reject them with enough, either case doesn't have enough evidence. If that makes me an atheist in your eyes so be it, but as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to admit there is no answer right now and for all I know we are living in the Matrix.

sounds like you are Agnostic.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Hilch

In my opinion, and many others, Atheism is the rejection of religion with certainty nothing such as god exisits, I'm not rejecting anything. I'm actually open to anything where there is proof, and there isn't a religion out there that has shown proof more than books that have too many flaws in them. For example the bible stating the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Please don't presume anything. You're basically trying to tell someone what they believe. Just like it would be ignorant to assume you believe in the same 'hateful Jesus' that Calgaryborn believes in.

You'll find the almost all of 'atheists' on this site do not hold that belief.

So with that, you can begin to rewrite your post.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

On the other hand I have no problem thinking that Jesus and Allah were teachers of their time but a lot of their simple teaching has been lost, misunderstood, and changed for the gain of the those in power. I look at it as a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff but than again I don't rely on whether they once lived or not as faith isn't a part of what I do.

If Kim Jong-Il can brainwash an entire nation into believing he is a God in a single lifetime, I'm not really shocked at what kind of fall-out 2000 years of proverbial garbage gets you.

[MarchHare]

In my opinion, and many others, Atheism is the rejection of religion with certainty nothing such as god exisits

Your opinion is wrong. I classify myself as an atheist, but I most certainly do not assert with 100% confidence that there is no god. You'll find this attitude is shared by the vast majority of atheists.

Not believing in any gods (i.e. atheism) is not the same thing as stating with absolute certainty that there are no gods.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Hilch

One thing I'm always curious about, and maybe it has already been answered, but what if you believe in the wrong god, will you be punished for that? How is that any different from not believing at all?

I'm personally not willing to commit to any particular reason why we are here because I don't believe there is enough evidence to say 100%. The world, solar system and universe is far too big to commit to being an atheist, however I feel like there is far too little evidence to believe in any religion we have on earth today.

I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" where I feel atheists/agnostics and religious folk feel it's there way or no way, you are wrong and I am right type attitude.

Just had to take issue with the part I bolded. You can't put a slash between the two terms and treat them like they represent a single position. There are agnostic theists just as there are agnostic atheists.

Marchhare already pointed out that your perspective is in line with what a lot of atheists think. I'd add that you're possibly also a weak agnostic: by this, I mean that based on your statements, it sounds like you feel that we don't have enough information right now to say anything certain about the existence of God, but also that it sounds like you feel that the existence of God is something that could be proven with the right evidence. A strong agnostic, on the other hand, would argue that the existence or non-existence of God is an unknowable proposition.

It's sometimes expressed as a quadrant graph, which is a useful way of thinking about it:

Although this isn't exactly accurate either, because there are different types of agnosticism that are difficult to order and often overlap, and the term 'gnosticism' doesn't really apply to atheism.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Doesn't really matter if it has little to do with his teachings.

In fact I would say you'd be in the extreme minority to suggest that Jesus didn't actually perform miracles. It would actually call into question the entire validity of the text.

And I must admit I'm a little confused by your posts as well, if Jesus did not perform miracles (as you don't really believe yourself), wouldn't that lend more credence to people 'worshiping at the alter of science' as you so put it?

Wouldn't that favor a naturalist explanation of the Universe and the world we live in?

It just seems those 2 points you are trying to make are in conflict.

It depends on what question you are asking. If you are looking for someone to fix all your problems than miracles sound pretty good or if you are fearful of dying the promise of afterlife looks pretty good.

I instead ask the question, what is this life, what is this existence? Miracles and promises don't help with this question as I need an answer that gives me peace in the present. The search for peace came from my heart, it isn't something I've been taught and the answer also comes from my heart.

I've found if I read the Bible in this way, I find many passages pertaining to my way of understanding although I don't make a practise of reading it, I have read it and come across sayings from it now and than and don't find any conflict with what I find pertinent. Miracles, the afterlife, and morality I don't find that pertinent.

I brought this up in another discussion. There was this behaviourist who did experiments with chickens. He put the chicken in a cage with a bar to press for the chicken to receive food. The chicken would get hungry and start thrashing around and in his panic might accidentally hit the bar. Miracles and promises of an afterlife are just the chicken thrashing around.

As for an explanation of the universe, I believe what science says and the only clue I have is that the peace I do experience puts me in touch with this energy. Since energy can be neither created or destroyed maybe this explains an aspect of god and how he shaped this universe. Really though this is just a guess and as I've said not the important question.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by Cheese

sounds like you are Agnostic.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Agnostics try to decide between this and that, I believe there are other choices than this and that. Agnostics ends with the lack of answers and say it's impossible to answer where I believe there must be better questions to get a true answer of the truth and the lack of answers is the start, not the end of the discussion.

Maybe I fall into a little bit of everything to be honest. But I beleive Agnostics are bound by their ignorance of having to decide between one or another, where I feel I'm unsure because of the limited knowledge on all fronts.

I feel I do everything I can to be a good person and do the right thing so if it came down to me dying and not getting into heaven because I didn't believe in a certain god, than so be it, I wouldn't want to be part of it anyways.

[MarchHare]

Thanks octothorp for mentioning the difference between atheism and agnosticism. They really are dealing with entirely different issues, and many people don't understand the distinction.

Think about how you would answer these two questions:

1. Do you believe in a supernatural deity?*
2. Is it possible to prove the existence or non-existence of a supernatural deity?

If you answered 'no' to (1), then you're an atheist. If you answered 'no' to (2), then you're an agnostic. Of course, it's possible to be an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-believer (i.e. someone who says, "It's not possible to know with certainty if there is a god or not, but I believe anyway.").

*Note that (1) is not the same question as, "Does a supernatural deity exist?" To that, most atheists would answer, "I don't know for sure, but probably not." That response most certainly is not equivalent to saying, "No, there absolutely positively is no deity."

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hilch

Agnostics try to decide between this and that, I believe there are other choices than this and that. Agnostics ends with the lack of answers and say it's impossible to answer where I believe there must be better questions to get a true answer of the truth and the lack of answers is the start, not the end of the discussion.

Maybe I fall into a little bit of everything to be honest. But I beleive Agnostics are bound by their ignorance of having to decide between one or another, where I feel I'm unsure because of the limited knowledge on all fronts.

I feel I do everything I can to be a good person and do the right thing so if it came down to me dying and not getting into heaven because I didn't believe in a certain god, than so be it, I wouldn't want to be part of it anyways.

Nope...you are definitely an Agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism