Another pointless religious/atheist thread.

[Heisenberg]

So atheism is a lack of belief in a god or diety. Religious people claim there is a god, therefore atheists believe we have to prove it to them.

Many atheists wouldn't care if you had proof or not. You are talking about skeptics. Skeptics subscribe to the accepted standards of burden of proof. We have said this before to you, but perhaps you think it's a phrase we just throw around. 'Burden of proof' is explained here; I encourage you to read the short description and tell me what you feel is unfair about it.

Atheists do a good on not stating what they do follow to control their morals. If we found that out then we would be able to point out everyone's flaws. But they did not state their beliefs so we can't point out any if their flaws.

This is exactly right! You can not infer anything about a person based on them being an atheist. You can't say they have become demoralized without god. You can't say they are likely to murder. You can't say anything other than that they are unconvinced of a deity.

Now, if you could point out some negative or amoral aspects that arrive solely and uniquely from the position of Atheism, then you could infer something about a person just by knowing they are atheist, and you would be justified in doing so. We honestly tried (in another thread) to pick each others brains and try to find examples of this, because we genuinely wanted to know and be aware of it. What we got was attacked and hassled by believers for asking this question. For being critical of atheism and not religion. For simply trying to examine our own position. We made no attempts to discredit religion, even made appeals to keep religion out of it, and yet believers still came in, demanded the thread be about comparing the two, and then got mad when that comparison made religion look bad. This effectively prevented us from actually examining atheism and looking for errors. Why do you suppose it happened that way?

 

[Hepheastus420]

yes, but you dont have to PROVE it all to us really. i would accept reasonable evidence that showed something to do with your beliefs. im trying to think of what an example would be like but i cant right now. i hope you understand what im sayin.
but what i find strange is that people believe it even when they know there is no evidence. i just cant understand that haha



im not sure exactly what your saying, but it seems you are saying you dont know what controls our(atheist) morals.
it depends on the society we live in. we also are born with certain morals like dont kill another human for example. this of course can be over ridden by our lives. sometimes things in our lives happen that allow us to justify those actions in our minds.
i believe that religion is a big justifier in the world. people can rely on it to allow themselves to commit negative acts. i also believe that religion does more of this negative than the positive that it does.



yes of course, but that would have nothing to do with atheism. it would be more about biological factors and life events



beliefs about what? god? i have zero beliefs about god. when i say i dont think he exists, its another way of saying i dont believe you when you say god does exist. i am unconvinced by your argument, to put it simply.
i do however have beliefs about other subjects, but thats for another thread i guess



just to clarify, science welcomes this pointing out of flaws. that is what science does to itself, actually. if you can prove a scientific theory wrong, by all means id like to see it.
i can point out flaws in society also. some have nothing to do with religion, but others do. pointing out the ones that dont, probably doesnt help to back up your claims.



you are correct when you say religious people can point out the flaws of science or society. anybody can do that, religious or not

That post was to say that religious people aren't the only bad peopple in this world (not saying that's what you guys said). I'm saying that alot of these atheists complain about religion because it causes so much negativity but who's knows how much negativity the person who is arguing with the religious person causes.
And for the belief statement I was saying that if you were to say you believe in science then we can point out countless flaws with science. I didn't mean for it to sound like you believe in god.

It was more of me saying I guess it's my fault for stating my beliefs without evidence, which I thought was fine, and wasn't aware of all the arguing that would come along with defending my beliefs.

 

[Heisenberg]

If God were not real you would not be here.

And If baloney were an academic you'd have a degree.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Many atheists wouldn't care if you had proof or not. You are talking about skeptics. Skeptics subscribe to the accepted standards of burden of proof. We have said this before to you, but perhaps you think it's a phrase we just throw around. 'Burden of proof' is explained here; I encourage you to read the short description and tell me what you feel is unfair about it.



This is exactly right! You can not infer anything about a person based on them being an atheist. You can't say they have become demoralized without god. You can't say they are likely to murder. You can't say anything other than that they are unconvinced of a deity.

Now, if you could point out some negative or amoral aspects that arrive solely and uniquely from the position of Atheism, then you could infer something about a person just by knowing they are atheist, and you would be justified in doing so. We honestly tried (in another thread) to pick each others brains and try to find examples of this, because we genuinely wanted to know and be aware of it. What we got was attacked and hassled by believers for asking this question. For being critical of atheism and not religion. For simply trying to examine our own position. We made no attempts to discredit religion, even made appeals to keep religion out of it, and yet believers still came in, demanded the thread be about comparing the two, and then got mad when that comparison made religion look bad. This effectively prevented us from actually examining atheism and looking for errors. Why do you suppose it happened that way?

I know heis, I was saying that there are no flaws with atheism because that is simply the lack of belief in a god or deity. But you can find problems with atheist alone (which doesn't stem from atheism). I'm saying that many atheists talk about religion like it is the worst thing ever when I'm sure the person making that argument has many flaws themselves. It was me saying that yeah sure religion has flaws but so do you (no offense).

 

[researchkitty]

That post was to say that religious people aren't the only bad peopple in this world (not saying that's what you guys said). I'm saying that alot of these atheists complain about religion because it causes so much negativity but who's knows how much negativity the person who is arguing with the religious person causes.
And for the belief statement I was saying that if you were to say you believe in science then we can point out countless flaws with science. I didn't mean for it to sound like you believe in god.

It was more of me saying I guess it's my fault for stating my beliefs without evidence, which I thought was fine, and wasn't aware of all the arguing that would come along with defending my beliefs.

I find it more oppressive that the religious people are always shitting on athiests. Religious people, in general not everyone specifically, always tend to try and spread their beliefs. Its part of human nature to do that too, such as our spreading of growing weed beliefs! I just dislike that a majority of the religious society seems to dislike science as their enemy, when science isnt trying to prove or disprove any god or religion. All we want is a model of the world around us and to learn what has naturally already occurred.

Besides, when was the last thread about religion and prove this prove that blah blah, started by someone who respects science? Generally, it's the religious people here asking us, the scientists, to prove them wrong or right when we have no means nor right to try. Its kinda fun to watch, though.

 

[Bwpz]

And If baloney were an academic you'd have degree.

Someone doesn't know the Oscar Mayer song

 

[tyler.durden]

I know heis, I was saying that there are no flaws with atheism because that is simply the lack of belief in a god or deity. But you can find problems with atheist alone (which doesn't stem from atheism). I'm saying that many atheists talk about religion like it is the worst thing ever when I'm sure the person making that argument has many flaws themselves. It was me saying that yeah sure religion has flaws but so do you (no offense).

Everyone, including atheists, has flaws. The difference is no flawed person is asking anyone to follow them and that they are the perfect word of god, it is religion that does this...

 

[Heisenberg]

Someone doesn't know the Oscar Mayer song

I wasn't referring to the lunchmeat, but to the rhetoric.

ba·lo·ney 2 also bo·lo·ney (b-ln) Slang
n.
Nonsense.
interj.
Used to express disagreement or exasperation.

But I did have to look up that song, little before my time I think.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Everyone, including atheists, has flaws. The difference is no flawed person is asking anyone to follow them and that they are the perfect word of god, it is religion that does this...

If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.

 

[beardo]

And If baloney were an academic you'd have degree.

If their is no God why are you alive? can you bring something dead to life?

 

[beardo]

Athesim is a form of mental illness

 

[Bwpz]

Athesim is a form of mental illness

Religion is a form of ignorance.

 

[cannabineer]

If there is no God why are you alive? Can you bring something dead to life?

1) I firmly believe that my being alive is not contingent on an engaged divine principle.
2) Among growers, you ask that?! Water, ferts, air, lighting (the four classical elements, right there!) ... all dead. I need a living catalyst (seed or clone) but observe the living result, and celebrate!
cheers 'neer

 

[mexiblunt]

If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.

if someone believes in science, the scientist in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is. It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.

 

[tyler.durden]

If someone believes in science and has full faith that what that scientist taught them, then that person probably goes around telling people this is how this is and if you disagree then you're wrong. Then the scientist finds out it is wrong but the guy has already spread the false word of truth. So yes flawed people (religious or other) try to gather followers.

Specifically, I wrote no flawed person, not no flawed diverse group of scientists. Let me try my point this way: Science gains its followers honestly; it does not claim to to be infallible, and it does not claim to be the word of god, so people know what to look out for going in. Religion gains its followers dishonestly; it claims to be infallible, it does claim to be the word of god, so people do not know what to look out for going in. Science says, 'be skeptical of what I say', religion says, 'don't you dare question what I say'...

 

[Hepheastus420]

if someone believes in science, the scientist in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is. It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.

If someone believes in religion, the religious person in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is.
It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.

 

[researchkitty]

If someone believes in religion, the religious person in this case is the guy running around telling ppl how it is.
It is then up to others to try and dis-prove that if they don't believe it.

And that's where the arguments fail, every time. Science is backed by repeatable observations. Religion is backed by some guy who says its so. In science, the correct theories get proven and incorrect theories get discarded or modified to work. In religion, any time religion is proven wrong, they blame it in interpretation, the person arguing against religion, or society.

Same as how in every other religious thread that posters like me comment in we get arguments from religious people saying theories and science is wrong. Yet none of them have *ever* even *once* linked to a scientific article that they could disprove.

Everyone wants to be a theoretical physicist, the thing is that it took me 8 years in school to do that, and its not a religious based environment. Science IS NOT religion and religion IS NOT science! It is simply that science proves religious people to be full of shit, and they dont like that. (Ok a little tongue in cheek there )

 

[Hepheastus420]

And that's where the arguments fail, every time. Science is backed by repeatable observations. Religion is backed by some guy who says its so. In science, the correct theories get proven and incorrect theories get discarded or modified to work. In religion, any time religion is proven wrong, they blame it in interpretation, the person arguing against religion, or society.

Same as how in every other religious thread that posters like me comment in we get arguments from religious people saying theories and science is wrong. Yet none of them have *ever* even *once* linked to a scientific article that they could disprove.

Everyone wants to be a theoretical physicist, the thing is that it took me 8 years in school to do that, and its not a religious based environment. Science IS NOT religion and religion IS NOT science! It is simply that science proves religious people to be full of shit, and they dont like that. (Ok a little tongue in cheek there )

So you're trying to tell me in the history of science there hasn't been a scientist telling people this is fact and that is the truth and then been proven wrong after having a bunch of people believe him?
Can you show me where a religious person says something in science is wrong? I haven't seen that on RIU. Maybe it just me that hasn't seen it. It's simple we don't care whether or not science proves something, that's a benefit for us (for humans).

 

[Bwpz]

So you're trying to tell me in the history of science there hasn't been a scientist telling people this is fact and that is the truth and then been proven wrong after having a bunch of people believe him?
Can you show me where a religious person says something in science is wrong? I haven't seen that on RIU. Maybe it just me that hasn't seen it. It's simple we don't care whether or not science proves something, that's a benefit for us (for humans).

Why would a religious person say something in science is wrong? If it's science, it's not wrong after tested. It's the theories that's wrong sometimes...

 

[olylifter420]

science was way wrong during the alchemy period, no one is bashing that... also, science is also used to kill... if you are too naive to know that, i dont know what to say... both sides kill, so what, as long as you aint the one dying right?

Why would a religious person say something in science is wrong? If it's science, it's not wrong after tested. It's the theories that's wrong sometimes...