Atheism is a faith.

The Atheist said:
My kids do the chorus to this - you should see them - 4 and 7 years old, screaming out, AYE, ESS ESS, AITCH OH, ELL EEE!

Love the guy! Finally you quote someone I relate to, well done!

Just for the record, I'm not the guy who talks during a movie; I'm the guy who leans over and says very loudly, "Shut the #### up!" (LMAO! I'm so used to that expression that I typed it in and had to go back and edit it out.) to the guy who is talking at the movies. I'm also the guy who stands and waits while people drive out of handicapped spaces after I've just suggested they ought to. Believe it if you like, I know who I am and whether or not you do bothers me exactly 0.00000%.
Click to expand...
I believe it. Fair enough.
 
The Atheist said:
No, that's just a lucky side-effect. The purpose is two-fold: (three if you count the pissing-off)

To point out that the bible is not just a bunch of fairy stories, but a collection of horrific tales, mostly instigated by a god-thing. We have little kids at school colouring in pictures of Noah in class - benevolent old animal-lover that he was. Well, I'm sure you know that if Noah had actually happened, then apparently, every kid on the planet who didn't have Noah as a dad got drowned. I like to point out the alternative side of some of the nice "just-so" stories in the bible.

To gain media attention to let everyone know that there are people around who are prepared to put time and effort into attacking christianity. Hopefully that will beg the question, "why" for which there's a very long list of answers.
Click to expand...
You know, you sound like De_Bunk. He spends most of his time in forum community. If you don't know him check him out, you would like him. He and I use to tag team a lunatic named Paul Bethke. Bethke was under the delusion that he could Blind James Randi by the power of god.

I've got to spend more time in Forum Community.
 
RandFan said:
You know, you sound like De_Bunk. He spends most of his time in forum community. If you don't know him check him out, you would like him. He and I use to tag team a lunatic named Paul Bethke. Bethke was under the delusion that he could Blind James Randi by the power of god.

I've got to spend more time in Forum Community.
Click to expand...
:dl:

That is so funny, De_Bunk and I are on very good terms. He's the founding member of the "JREF Tossers" and I'm his prime disciple!
 
You're all heart ;) Actually I did work for 3 years and then I fled the madness of the real world for the sanctity of university research :P
 
CapelDodger said:
Doubt has been classified as heresy at times, of course, so it is clearly frowned on. Not by wimply modern Anglicanism, but that's hardly Christian any more.

The centrality of Faith ("Faith, Hope and Charity, and the greatest of these is Faith") is down to it being such a useful device. Convince people that it's important - which you do by constant repetition and early indoctrination - and they're unlikely to question. They're also unlikely to listen to doubters. The sheer dottiness of religion can be presented as a challenge to Faith, an opportunity to better demonstrate one's primary virtue. In theory, the best thing you can do for a believer is actually prove the non-existence of their god. Theirs will be the strongest, most-tested Faith ever. Because they won't stop believing, of course. It's what they do.
Click to expand...
So if a Xtian expresses doubt it's a bad thing, being wimpy (let's leave the headgear out of this), and hardly Xtian (evidence for this assertion?). And if they don't doubt it's a bad thing! So how do you prove the non-existence of God?
 
Mr Clingford said:
So if a Xtian expresses doubt it's a bad thing...
Click to expand...
To some Christians, doubt is bad.

Mr Clingford said:
And if they don't doubt it's a bad thing!
Click to expand...
To skeptics, blind faith is bad. So it depends on which group you want to be respected by.

Mr Clingford said:
So how do you prove the non-existence of God?
Click to expand...
You cannot prove a negative. IMO, you can't prove anything, you can only give evidence for it. I have never seen any evidence of God. That doesn't disprove Him, it just means that if He does exist, it puts him in the (nearly empty) catagory of "things which exist for which there is no evidence."
 
joobz said:
Oh Come on! you can't let that happen.

Here let me help.

One or both of you smell.
:D
Click to expand...
Ha! You're actually quite wrong - room full of people, the ones who smell will be the students. You must know that, unless you're one of those smelly, evil, lazy tax-burdens yourself!
 
Tricky said:
To some Christians, doubt is bad.

To skeptics, blind faith is bad. So it depends on which group you want to be respected by.
Click to expand...
I have known a number of Xtians who think that honest doubt is good and blind faith is bad.

Tricky said:
You cannot prove a negative. IMO, you can't prove anything, you can only give evidence for it.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Tricky said:
I have never seen any evidence of God. That doesn't disprove Him, it just means that if He does exist, it puts him in the (nearly empty) catagory of "things which exist for which there is no evidence."
Click to expand...
My life appears to be different as, so far, the God hypothesis is the best fit IMO. I say more about this here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2101551#post2101551
 
For the record, I don't agree with TA on this point. I do not agree that atheism is a faith.

I think it's a calling. :D

M.
 
Mr Clingford said:
I have known a number of Xtians who think that honest doubt is good and blind faith is bad.
Click to expand...
That's why I carefully said "some Christians".

Mr Clingford said:
My life appears to be different as, so far, the God hypothesis is the best fit IMO. I say more about this here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2101551#post2101551

I think if I say God does not exist then I ask the question 'So what were all those encounters and experiences I have had?' when I felt a loving warm presence (often on my own), when I wasn't stoned or drunk or been fasting or been highly emotional. That, plus what I said at the end of my last post about love and meaning that I have found in life and worship (and even in the Bible at times, yikes!) plus that a coherent idea of the Xtian is possible leads me to the conclusion that the God hypothesis is still the best for my evidence. The idea of redemption, of lives being turned around, rings true for me, whether God exists or not. I believe that the idea that one is able to turn away from self-destructive lives to giving, loving ones is true, and is a fundamental part of Xtianity, so at least that part is true.
Click to expand...
Yet for all your personal experience, there is not anything here that could be called solid evidence. In the end, it is still just faith. Faith in the idea of redemption. Faith that the meaning you have found has anything to do with the existence of God.

I'm glad for you that Xtianity has brought you happiness. For some others here (talk to Slingblade) it has brought only misery. As for myself, a former Christian, I merely found it unsatisfying. Yet my life has plenty of meaning, plenty of love, plenty of giving, and is not, I like to think, self-destructive. So if two people achieve similar levels of, for lack of a better word, enlightenment, one with belief in God and one without belief in God, that says to me that God is not really a part of the equation. All of those things are coming from you, even if you choose to give the credit to a being for which there is no evidence.
 
cgordon said:
For once, I have to agree with Ken. :D

Cosmological studies, including the discipline of astronomy, all point to the fallacy of mythology as a source for creation ... as an educated, degreed astronomer and skeptic, Plait has far better claim to talking about the scientific and skeptical basis of creation cosmology than most of us, especially the largely uneducated (by any conventional definition) Biblical creationists.
Click to expand...

But, there IS a point of creation. But, besides that, I have met very educated and knowledgeable physicists and cosmologists who when I ask them if they think there is a god they say, "yes, but you won't find it here". According to Plait, they are wrong. I do not see he has any particular knowledge that they do not have.

In response to this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/11/13/letting-go-of-god/

I think this page from Cornell says it best
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231

However, the bottom line of what I think is this: science has not even come close to being able to prove (or disprove) the existence of God, and perhaps never will. So whatever the real statistics for how many astronomers believe in God, I don't think there's a single competent astronomer out there who believes in God because of his or her work in astronomy.

Since this article argues very well the neutrality of science, the same can just as well be said:

I don't think there's a single competent astronomer out there who does not believe in God because of his or her work in astronomy.

Imagine some kid goes to his popular website to learn about astronomy and ends up getting preached to. This is bad astronomy.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Ha! You're actually quite wrong - room full of people, the ones who smell will be the students. You must know that, unless you're one of those smelly, evil, lazy tax-burdens yourself!
Click to expand...
Actually, no, I'm one of those smelly, evil, lazy tax-burdening liberal elitest engineering professors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom