Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

WTF kind of church was that? I've never seen a collection plate at a funeral.

Quebec RC.

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

yep
takes as much faith to believe we all came from a random explosion of stuff and eventually became people who have some idea of right and wrong, as it does to believe that a God made the universe and us, giving us souls and a sense of something bigger than us

Good thing science doesn't say we came from a random explosion of stuff then.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Whether one is fanatical about there being no god, or one is fanatical about there being a god...both are still fanatics.

You can say the same thing about people who are fanatical about the color blue or fanatical about scrambled eggs. Fanatics are fanatics.

I've personally never met a fanatical atheist. Never had one on my doorstep, never seen one excommunicated for having radical beliefs, never seen them chanting in the streets for the death of people who believe something else, never seen a news story that involved an atheist blowing up a cafe full of other atheists with vaguely different beliefs.

Can you give me an example of a fanatical atheist?

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by photon

Good thing science doesn't say we came from a random explosion of stuff then.

it really is a useless argument, my point was just that either we were created for a reason/purpose or we randomly came to be. doesn't science still support evolution? where did the big bang come from(ie wasn't it random??)?
cells randomly meeting up and joining together, then water animals randomly deciding to explore land and flopping around on it until they grew legs?

it goes to the beginning, some people believe God was there and decided to make a universe, others believe it just created itself, out of a loud noise (big bang)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Good thing science says we came from a random explosion of fluff.

Fixed.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

yep
takes as much faith to believe we all came from a random explosion of stuff and eventually became people who have some idea of right and wrong, as it does to believe that a God made the universe and us, giving us souls and a sense of something bigger than us

Disagree, to believe in fairy tales take a whole lot more faith than to believe in science.
The belief in fairy tales is out of fear that when you die "thats it" the belief in science allows one to live his life the best he can for as long as he can.

Of the 2 million confirmed species of animals/birds and reptiles only one believes in a fairy tale god.

On a personal note I live my life helping others in need, I teach my kids values and to be good to others. I also have no problem knowing I'm no different than any other animal, when I die...I'm dead, the only thing left of me will be memorys my friends and family remember.

[photon]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

it really is a useless argument, my point was just that either we were created for a reason/purpose or we randomly came to be.

Well I don't really think those are the only two options, but I understand your point.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

doesn't science still support evolution?

It does, but evolution isn't random.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

where did the big bang come from(ie wasn't it random??)?

The question might not even make sense, if time is an aspect of the universe, and cause and effect is related to time, does it make sense to ask a question of where the big bang came from if time didn't even exist? It's like asking what's north of the north pole; the question isn't meaningful.

The Big Bang is about the history of the universe from very early in time to now, and that is extremely well supported by the evidence. However at time = 0 everything becomes a singularity, which doesn't mean that's actually what happened, it means that the equations are undefined; that our current level is not adequate to describe the state of the universe beyond a specific point in time.

So if the big bang came from anywhere, the current answer to the question from science's point of view is "I don't know". It's an active area of research with many different people putting forth many different hypothesis, but it might be 50 years before there's a good answer to that question.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

cells randomly meeting up and joining together, then water animals randomly deciding to explore land and flopping around on it until they grew legs?

But it wasn't random, which genes got passed on to subsequent generations weren't determined randomly.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

it goes to the beginning, some people believe God was there and decided to make a universe, others believe it just created itself, out of a loud noise (big bang)

That's true, some people believe in a deistic type god that made the universe and its rules and then let it go.. and I don't necessarily have a specific problem with that belief, only that it seems that over time the domain of what god did seems to retreat over time.. god goes from controlling everything and over time god's direct involvement keeps shrinking.. lightning is a natural process, not god. Floods aren't created by the gods as once thought. The planets orbit according to gravity not god moving them. Life evolved from a common ancestor. The planet formed through a natural process. Now the line for some seems to be the creation of the universe, but is that only because we haven't figured that out yet? It's called the "God of the Gaps" argument.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Fixed.

Fixing a statement usually means making something more accurate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Fixing a statement usually means making something more accurate.

I was kidding! Sheesh.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Why is that?

"Fanatical", by definition, means "irrational zeal". How is buying into secular scientific fact "irrational"?

There is no conclusive proof that there is no God. There are plenty of good philosophical arguments for atheism, but there are also decent arguments for believing in God.

I'm an atheist, but I'd never pretend that my position on the existence of a God was 'fact.' It's not fact. It's a belief, a faith.

That is precisely why I'm surprised that so many people think it's odd that atheists can be arrogant and fanatical about our faith in the non-existence of God.

Atheists who tell you that a sensible, fact-minded person can't believe in the existence of God (mind, nobody necessarily means the Abrahamic God, so you can't say, "oh, but the Bible/Quran is wrong on *insert whatever here*, therefore you can't believe in God." Well, sure. You can't believe in that God) tend not to know much of anything about anything.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I was kidding! Sheesh.

Lol sorry, can't see the humour for the trees today.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

There is no conclusive proof that there is no God. There are plenty of good philosophical arguments for atheism, but there are also decent arguments for believing in God.

I'm an atheist, but I'd never pretend that my position on the existence of a God was 'fact.' It's not fact. It's a belief, a faith.

That is precisely why I'm surprised that so many people think it's odd that atheists can be arrogant and fanatical about our faith in the non-existence of God.

The statement made numerous times in this thread by you and others that atheists are no different than believers and that each have "faith" in their position simply isn't true.

Few, if any, atheists will state "there is no god" as a dogmatic fact. The vast majority adopt some form of the position "there is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist. Should compelling evidence ever become available, then my view will change."

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The statement made numerous times in this thread by you and others that atheists are no different than believers and that each have "faith" in their position simply isn't true.

Few, if any, atheists will state "there is no god" as a dogmatic fact. The vast majority adopt some form of the position "there is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist. Should compelling evidence ever become available, then my view will change."

No, that's absolutely true. The statement 'I believe that God does not exist' is a statement of belief, belief usually is considered a synonym of faith in my experience, and according to my thesaurus.

As for the second portion of bolded text, have you ever heard of argument from ignorance? The logical, 'default' conclusion that would follow from there being no evidence for the existence of God would be not knowing whether or not there is a God, unless there is evidence that God does not exist. There is no such evidence. Atheism is a statement of belief, period. One may be an atheist who says that he or she does not know whether or not God exists.

The fact is that a lot of atheists can be very abrasive and act high and mighty about them having the superior belief, like the guy I initially quoted did. The reason this shouldn't surprise anyone is because it is a belief we're talking about, and people tend to get abrasive and look down on others when beliefs enter the equation, even if they're just beliefs about, say, which movie is better than which, or whether or not Nickelback is any good.

[Flames0910]

"there is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist. Should compelling evidence ever become available, then my view will change."

Had to log in just to thank PyramidsofMars who seems to be advancing a thoughtful, well-considered, non-partisan argument. This thread is a perfect example of how both sides can be dogmatic. Science can be your God if you make it so. Just like (at the risk of sounding melodramatic) consumerism, money, TV, fashion, etc, etc.

I did want to respond to this, however, and question why you conclude that the no-god option is the default?
It seems to me, that lacking conclusive evidence for or against, both would be acceptable conclusions. After all, how were molecules discovered if not by looking at a seemingly solid object and saying 'what if there were actually millions of tiny particles here?'

One last concluding thought...
Science may be rational but our world, in many ways, is not. It's complex, irregular, bizarre, fascinating, awe-inspiring, and beautiful, but oftentimes, irrational.

At the risk of sounding like a naive, preachy romantic - why do we always have to bicker that our belief is right? The same sentiments that go into a thread like this are what fuel all kinds of wars (both science and religion). Can't we look for the truth in the other person's argument instead of the negative? Heaven forbid we actually learn something.

[Smelly Fred]

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

And...well....I'd rather just live my life without having to worry about the whole thing at all! God, no god, meh.

I don't think it takes any amount of faith to "believe" in the best explanation that we can currently come up with and be open to another explanation inevitably besting the current one at some point. That kinda thing happens, and should be both encouraged and welcomed. It isn't very convincing that there is a god in the way people currently envision it, but if that were to change then sure, count me in. Right now it is about as probable as a group of fairies hanging out in my garden. They really could be there, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[MarchHare]

I did want to respond to this, however, and question why you conclude that the no-god option is the default?

Take the sentence and replace "god" with something completely ridiculous, like "flying spaghetti monster": there is no evidence for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, therefore the default position is to assume that one does not exist.

Do you think it's a reasonable position for someone to believe that the FSM exists because there's no proof that it doesn't? That's a logical fallacy along the lines of Russell's Teapot.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Smelly Fred

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't
Than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is a God.

That is the fear factor central to pretty much every organized religion.

If you're not in, you're going to miss the reward. Money and time up front gets you some big reward later.

And, you know, when I put it like that it sounds like a classic "advance fee scam" like you see out of Nigeria.

Cowperson

[3 Justin 3]

Religion tells us we all come from Adam and Eve, so everyone enjoys incest. w00t w00t

[Pastiche]

Show me a fanatical atheist.