"Atheism is a superstition."

[TjW]

Nominated, BTW.

Thanks, Gawdzilla.

It is a little embarrassing, actually. I saw your nomination in the nomination thread, took a look at your post, and that popped into my head.
It wasn't until after I posted it I realized it wasn't a CT thread.
Ah, well, one religious behavior is much like another, I suppose.

 

[Sledge]

Hmmm...I already said what I thought of what he said. It was a stupid answer, and is not deserving of a response.

Have you considered becoming a limbo dancer?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There's scientific evidence that God is not real? Where? And here, I always thought you couldn't prove a negative like that....

SG said, "evidence", not, "proof".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So lack of belief in imaginary beings is superstition. Hmm, looks like someone didn't understand the very meaning of what superstition is, by definition.

 

[Corsair 115]

There's scientific evidence that God is not real? Where?

It's not science's job to disprove God. It is for the believers to prove the existence of God. Their claim, their burden of proof.

If I say right now somewhere in the asteroid belt there's a piece of chocolate cake, it is not up to you to disprove that claim. Rather, it is incumbent upon me to provide proof that my claim is true.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks, Gawdzilla.

It is a little embarrassing, actually. I saw your nomination in the nomination thread, took a look at your post, and that popped into my head.
It wasn't until after I posted it I realized it wasn't a CT thread.
Ah, well, one religious behavior is much like another, I suppose.

The underlying psychosis is probably identical in both cases. Religion, CT, UFOs, etc., we may have a cure for that **** one day. Until we do I will continue to wear my lizard-scale ribbon and watch the Icke Day telethon.

 

[Dinwar]

If someone wants to believe in God, who cares? Let them. If someone doesn't want to believe in God, again, who cares? Let them.

Sorry, that doesn't work. See, the problem isn't us Evil Atheists--the worst we ever do is write books and blogs, and occasionally a professor will give a lecture. The problem is that the theists keep trying to shove their beliefs down our throats. Read the Wedge Document to see one group state as much, quite literally, in their own words. Or see the reaction of theists to simple actions like bus ads and books. Atheists are in fact a besieged minority, with laws discriminating against them in many cases (tax law, what offices we can hold, court precident in custody cases, etc). And then theists come to the few online forums where atheists can vent and screach about "tolerance". Christianity has a parable about planks and specks that theists would do well to remember.....

If a theist wants to preach out loud, again, so what? No need to start any sort of debate to try to "prove" them wrong...

This is my other issue with this sort of thing: we can't show each other respect because we speek different languages. In science, "respect" amounts to a close examination of the data and, quite frequently, ripping the argument to pieces and seeing what pieces survive, and if anything left can be useful. I know of several scientists who have made a name for themselves by asking questions they KNEW were wrong, because in proving the idea wrong science learned something (Dolf Seilacher is rather infamous in invert paleo for doing just that, to the point where "being Dolfed" is a right of passage). This is the direct opposite of what religions demand as respect. They demand that their beliefs be held above criticizm, that they not be analyzed too closely, that they not be subject to the rigours of evidence, of logic, and of analysis that every other datum science respects are subject to. In short, the very act of demanding that we not engage theists in debate IS INTOLLERANT--it's intollerant of the scientific method of dealing with data. Which really makes this choice either/or.

There's scientific evidence that God is not real? Where?

Each action attributed to gods has either been found to be mundainly explainable or simply false. Theists posit new actions that their gods have done, and logic and evidence dismantle those. After a theory has been wrong a number of times, it's reasonable to conclude that the theory is false.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is dumb to deride anyone for any reason whether they believe in something or not.

You feel derision to be inappropriate is all scenarios? What about in the case of racists and homophobes? This seems to me to be far too broad a generalization on your part.

If someone wants to believe in God, who cares? Let them. If someone doesn't want to believe in God, again, who cares? Let them. There is a neat littler term called "tolerance" that Western societies aim to protect with various governmental and social oversights. Namely: Human rights documents.

In the case of people who believe in gods but do not feel compelled to force their beliefs down the throats of others, I am all too happy to show them the same respect in return. However, if they feel comfortable making claims or expressing opinions in public, then I feel that they should also be comfortable with others expressing disagreement. The right to disagree needs to be reciprocal. Unfortunately, we live in a world where far too many people think that their beliefs grant them the right to dictate how others behave, or even harm or kill them. When people stop killing people because of what is written in their magic books The degree of criticism I have for religion in general will decrease dramatically.

If a theist wants to preach out loud, again, so what? No need to start any sort of debate to try to "prove" them wrong. You have the education system where you can teach all the latest and greatest scientific theories. But if the student wants to continue believing in God, and that the world is flat, who cares? That's his prerogative, especially once they are out of school. So long as the student is IN school, and they know about the scientific theories, how to read and write, a bit about history, and so forth, then the education system did it's job in arming that person for a decent life. It is ultimately up to the person to make their own choices.

You do realize that this is a forum intended specifically to discuss the veracity of religion (among other things), yes? It's not like we're going to churches and interrupting the sermon t stand up and shout "there is no god!". And if someone has the right to stand up and say, "God is the answer", then others have the right to stand up and say, "no, he isn't".

 

[Nihilianth]

Well, that's probably because atheists and agnostics significantly outnumber theists in the membership. Head on over to Rapture Ready and check the relative proportions.

lol, that would probably irritate me just as much.

I probably shouldn;t even bother wanding over here, in the religion section. I thought maybe there would be some rather intelligent conversation, rather than the same-old, same-old "Atheists are smarter than theists, duhhhh!" and "Your everlasting souls will forever burn in hell for all of eternity!!"

 

[Nihilianth]

It's not science's job to disprove God. It is for the believers to prove the existence of God. Their claim, their burden of proof.

If I say right now somewhere in the asteroid belt there's a piece of chocolate cake, it is not up to you to disprove that claim. Rather, it is incumbent upon me to provide proof that my claim is true.

Nice. Took that line out of context there, LGO.

I asked that, because someone said "there is evidence that God is not real," paraphrased.

 

[Nihilianth]

SG said, "evidence", not, "proof".

Again, I say:

There is evidence that God is not real? I would like to know where, and who proposed or found this evidence.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Again, I say:

There is evidence that God is not real? I would like to know where, and who proposed or found this evidence.

Tell you what, first you dedicate your precious time to look for evidence on the existence of Frodo Baggins, and then, when you completely discard any possibility of Frodo Baggins not being real, we'll talk about finding evidence for God.

 

[Nihilianth]

Really? What negative outcomes have resulted from 'non-belief' in something? This is one of the most annoying lines peddled on here by theists. Nobody does ANYTHING because of an absence of belief in what they are doing.

I await your examples and hope you have something better than the tired old Communist/Nazi lines which are as much an example of 'non beliefs' as pears, apples and plums are of 'non-fruits'

You say that religions cause all kinds of strife in the world. There are PLENTY of examples of non-theists causing all sorts of strife as well.

Therefore, the argument that religion causes strife is a moot point to make. Because anyone can use any excuse to cause any sort of crimes against humanity.

The God of the Bible? Absolutely there's scientific evidence that God is not real. Just look at the errors of fact in the Bible.

Using the Bible to argue the non-existence of God is just as stupid as using the Bible to argue the existence of God.

In any case, that is not evidence of the non-existence of God, and doesn't even begin to make any sense at all to make such an argument.

Did you have another God in mind? If so, define it in a meaningful way and we'll see if it exists.

"Another" God in mind? How do you mean? Let's just say I believe whole-heartedly in the Christian God for a moment. How should I go about "defining" Him? That would be like an insect trying to define space exploration, or string theory.

Just because something is or might be real, doesn't mean it is able to be defined in any meaningful way.

 

[Nihilianth]

Tell you what, first you dedicate your precious time to look for evidence on the existence of Frodo Baggins, and then, when you completely discard any possibility of Frodo Baggins not being real, we'll talk about finding evidence for God.

I'll tell YOU what. It wasn't my claim one way or the other about any evidence for or against the existence of God. Rather, it was someone else's claim, and now increasingly more and more peoples' claim, that there IS evidence for the non existence of God.

I didn't make any sort of claim. I merely asked to see this evidence that supposedly exists. So. Where is it? I should like to see it. It would be pretty amazing. It would be a major breakthrough in proving the fallacy of proving non-existence is no longer a fallacy.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'll tell YOU what. It wasn't my claim one way or the other about any evidence for or against the existence of God. Rather, it was someone else's claim, and now increasingly more and more peoples' claim, that there IS evidence for the non existence of God.

I didn't make any sort of claim. I merely asked to see this evidence that supposedly exists. So. Where is it? I should like to see it. It would be pretty amazing. It would be a major breakthrough in proving the fallacy of proving non-existence is no longer a fallacy.

You don't seem to understand: Us, atheists, don't make any claims of any kind about any Gods. When we engage in these conversations it's because we're discussing other people's beliefs. When we respond to people like you, who seem to consider that these things are worth wasting our time discussing them as if they were serious topics, we like to remind you that there's as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of any imaginary being. So, there's no reason to assume that it is real.

If you try to turn the pancake over by saying "Well, there's no evidence for God NOT existing!!", we can point out to you how easy it is to say the same thing about Frodo or Mickey Mouse or Superman or The Tooth Fairy or any other imaginary being. In other words, your rhetorical game of trying to make the issue of God seem more valid by saying there's no evidence of him NOT existing, is a logical fallacy type of fail.

 

[Nihilianth]

You feel derision to be inappropriate is all scenarios? What about in the case of racists and homophobes? This seems to me to be far too broad a generalization on your part.

Uh, well, obviously I never mentioned any sort of thing about racism or homophobia. Unless, of course, you would suggest that people believing in God, or people not believing in God is somehow comparable to racism and homophobia.

Otherwise, that "point" doesn't address what I said about how dumb it is to deride people for their beliefs or non-beliefs, which is quite obviously said in the context of religion.

In the case of people who believe in gods but do not feel compelled to force their beliefs down the throats of others, I am all too happy to show them the same respect in return. However, if they feel comfortable making claims or expressing opinions in public, then I feel that they should also be comfortable with others expressing disagreement. The right to disagree needs to be reciprocal. Unfortunately, we live in a world where far too many people think that their beliefs grant them the right to dictate how others behave, or even harm or kill them. When people stop killing people because of what is written in their magic books The degree of criticism I have for religion in general will decrease dramatically.

This is what I am talking about. I was inclined to agree with you, up until the bolded section.

1. Saying the words "magic books" is stupid, and serves no other purpose than to offend people who have such core beliefs.

2. As I have mentioned earlier, people will find ANY excuse, not just religion, to kill other people. It is unfair to point to religion, and exlusively blame religion for all the strife in this world.

Now, how can you fix that statement? By saying something along these lines:

When people stop killing people, the degree of respect towards one another will increase dramatically.

You do realize that this is a forum intended specifically to discuss the veracity of religion (among other things), yes? It's not like we're going to churches and interrupting the sermon t stand up and shout "there is no god!". And if someone has the right to stand up and say, "God is the answer", then others have the right to stand up and say, "no, he isn't".

I can agree with this. So long as you remain respectful of the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Saying things like "you magic books," will not garner any respect towards you, and what you have to say. Again, there is no purpose to say something as ignorant as that, unless you are purposely out looking for a fight.

Making fun of people and their beliefs in no way to "educate" them about anything. Of course, it is all a two-way street. But one side or the other has to take the first steps of treating others with respect.

Until such time as that happens, it remains idiotic to deride other people for whatever beliefs they may or may not hold. (It is idiotic to do so anyway.)

 

[Halfcentaur]

You say that religions cause all kinds of strife in the world. There are PLENTY of examples of non-theists causing all sorts of strife as well.

Therefore, the argument that religion causes strife is a moot point to make. Because anyone can use any excuse to cause any sort of crimes against humanity.

Not so, the issue is one of semantics. Dogma and doctrine and the celebration of faith in an organization or idea is religion's territory. The irony is, these examples cited as the horrors of secularism, like Maoist China and communist Russia are actually just more evidence of religion's power in different forms. Religion evolves as a social meme. Communism, Nazism, Maoism, this was all actually RELIGION.

These regimes were actually religions founded ironically on tenants that would stamp out all other religions as false superstition, replacing them with their own doctrines of unquestionable secularism, worship of the state. This is the definition of a religion. Communism and Maoist China is an argument against dogmatic thinking and against absolute truths and tribalism, not atheism. Religion is when a group of people believe they have the truth in their keeping and their tribe is a custodian of this knowledge, either to be shared or forced on others.

It's a skepticism of dogma and belief we advocate, and not the the word theist or atheist or religion or doctrine.
It's all the same argument you're pardoning behind semantics.

Sacred truths with no evidence that do not celebrate scrutiny are a scourge on humanity. As soon as one stops searching for the truth, one arrives at belief, and the mind stagnates.

Belief leads to the stagnation of the mind, secular dogma or Christianity celebrates this stagnation.

 

[Nihilianth]

You don't seem to understand: Us, atheists, don't make any claims of any kind about any Gods. When we engage in these conversations it's because we're discussing other people's beliefs. When we respond to people like you, who seem to consider that these things are worth wasting our time discussing them as if they were serious topics, we like to remind you that there's as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for the existence of any imaginary being. So, there's no reason to assume that it is real.

If you try to turn the pancake over by saying "Well, there's no evidence for God NOT existing!!", we can point out to you how easy it is to say the same thing about Frodo or Mickey Mouse or Superman or The Tooth Fairy or any other imaginary being. In other words, your rhetorical game of trying to make the issue of God seem more valid by saying there's no evidence of him NOT existing, is a logical fallacy type of fail.

Warnnig: Copy-pastte job:

It wasn't my claim one way or the other about any evidence for or against the existence of God. Rather, it was someone else's claim, and now increasingly more and more peoples' claim, that there IS evidence for the non existence of God.

I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. Someone else said "There is evidence that God does not exist." I simply asked "There is? Where is this evidence? Isn't that, like, some kind of fallacy or something?"

Watch this neat little line of discussion, that was taken WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out of proportion, just because you think I am "ST00PID," and deserving of nothing but ridicule since I am a theist, and someone on your side gets away scott-free just because....well.....he's "SMART" since he doesn't believe in God:

Science is successful DUE to atheism? Are you daft?

You have that backward. The scientific process is not the same as the conclusions one arrives at using the scientific process. It's following the scientific process, which is a proven successful approach to understanding the Universe, that leads one to conclude gods are mythical beings.

I realize you don't accept the evidence that leads to the conclusion your god is a mythical being. But I bet you recognize other gods people believe in are mythical like Zeus and Thor and Pele.

There's scientific evidence that God is not real? Where? And here, I always thought you couldn't prove a negative like that....

Obviously, since this evidence has not been produced, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that leads to the conclusion that God is a mythical being.

Russel's teapot aside, in ll seriousness, how is this belief comparable to Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy?

 

[Nihilianth]

Not so, the issue is one of semantics. Dogma and doctrine and the celebration of faith in an organization or idea is religion's territory. The irony is, these examples cited as the horrors of secularism, like Maoist China and communist Russia are actually just more evidence of religion's power in different forms. Religion evolves as a social meme. Communism, Nazism, Maoism, this was all actually RELIGION.

These regimes were actually religions founded ironically on tenants that would stamp out all other religions as false superstition, replacing them with their own doctrines of unquestionable secularism, worship of the state. This is the definition of a religion. Communism and Maoist China is an argument against dogmatic thinking and against absolute truths and tribalism, not atheism. Religion is when a group of people believe they have the truth in their keeping and their tribe is a custodian of this knowledge, either to be shared or forced on others.

It's a skepticism of dogma and belief we advocate, and not the the word theist or atheist or religion or doctrine.
It's all the same argument you're pardoning behind semantics.

Sacred truths with no evidence that do not celebrate scrutiny are a scourge on humanity. As soon as one stops searching for the truth, one arrives at belief, and the mind stagnates.

Belief leads to the stagnation of the mind, secular dogma or Christianity celebrates this stagnation.

I have never heard of religion described quite in that way.

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Nazism, Communism, and Maoism are not at all "religions." Religion is the belief in the supernatural. Nazism is the belief that Caucasians are superior to all other races. Communism is a specific form of organizing society that has failed miserably (i.e., society is supposed to be "classless.") Maoism is just another form of Communism.

What Nazism, Communism, and all of Communism's various forms, such as Maoism and Marxism, have in common, are that they are generally ruled by brutal fascist dictators, whose sole purpose is to gain as much power unto themselves. They will use any and all means in order to whip people up into a frenzy of support.

There is no "religion" anywhere in there.

There are many examples throughout history in which religion was used as an excuse to achieve much the same results. And like fascism, all those examples were miserable failures.

I also wouldn't say the belief in....say....Christianity is stagnation of anything. Or rather, not necessarily so. When it comes to "The Big Questions," such as "where did the Universe come from?" and "What caused the Big Bang?" and "How did we ACTUALLY go from non-life to life?" I think it is just as stagnant for atheists to completely do away with any possibility whatsoever for an Intelligent Designer.

Now, I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say in regards to how we go from non-life to life. You are going to say about how RNA is the perfect replicator for organizing a bunch of different components of proteins and so forth to join together for simple-celled "organisms," in which they began to finally evolve. Great. But how does it and when does it actually become "alive?"

As great as science is, and as much as we have discovered, there are still far too many unanswered questions, many of which will only remain unanswerable. The more we discover and find out about the Universe, the stranger a place it becomes, and the more questions get revealed.

As great and wondrous as the Universe is, I find it pretty foolish and stagnant to discount the possibility for anything, even an ultimate Creator.

 

[Corsair 115]

Nice. Took that line out of context there, LGO.

I asked that, because someone said "there is evidence that God is not real," paraphrased.

There is evidence that God is not real: the lack of evidence provided by believers supporting their claim.