• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Atheism is a superstition."

Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that non theist starting strife are not doing it because they are non theist they have otehr reasons (which are as bad granted , but they don't do it because of their atheist or in the name of their atheism, even the communist were not purging people around because of atheism, and IIRC they even had initially support of the orthodox church).

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

If one use a holy book (not only the bible there are more religion than Christianity) to attempt to prove the existence of gods, it is perfectly fine to use the same way to falsify the evidence.

That said , I don't see evidence against the existence of gods, I see a lot of evidence that their existence (gods) is not necessary to explain anything whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
A very simple rule in this debate.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" (Christopher Hitchens).

The other point I wish to make is, do believers deserve the right NOT to be offended?

I say, no more than non-believers.

As has been said above, it is not belief in the supernatural that is often the problem for non-believers, it is the underseved deference and priviledges that are afforded to it by the state, our laws, and in education. Some examples of this has already been mentioned above.

If individuals want to believe in the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Gnostic gospels etc, and their interpretation of a type of god that flows from that, and then wish to form or follow a religious institution or cult, then that is fine.

What is not fine, is to indoctrinate their and other's children with their beliefs, to teach that biblical accounts are factual in schools, enjoy special treatment that exempts them from certain laws, and expect deference from others in their daily lives.

When we reach that scenario, then the conflict between science and religious belief will be over. However, it still seems we have a long way to go from where I am standing.
 
Last edited:
And by the way, derision and laugh is a powerful tool against the "tyrant" and fanatics. Especially those which want to put a foot in the classroom.

You HAVEN'T provided any evidence whatsoever that it should not be used. You just said "it is stupid for atheist to deride theist" (and vice versa). You were provided evidence why in some case derision can be used.
 
Nihilianth said:
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.





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.



"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.
Click to expand...

If you can't define god then how do you know that the entity you call god is god?
 
Nihilianth said:
I have never heard of religion described quite in that way.



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.
Click to expand...

Let's see:

When it comes to "The Big Questions," such as "where did the Universe come from?"(answer god ) and "What caused the Big Bang?"(answer god) and "How did we ACTUALLY go from non-life to life?(answer god)"

Looks like god is the answer to every question so we don't need to look any farther.

BTW why do you think these are "Big Questions"?
 
epix said:
Your attempt to credit science with success due to its marriage to atheism, which is non-existent in reality, is . . . well, I leave the conclusion to you.
Click to expand...

and ...

Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know what amazes me? The theists attempts to disassociate science from atheism, yet then go on to insist that atheism is absolutely responsible for the most heinous of atrocities.
The definitions of science and atheism are more allied than theism and science. The inquiring mind will not be told simply that the answers are all in this magic book and you need look no further. That inquisitiveness will not accept that 'goddidit' as an answer worthy of discussion. On the other hand the theist will not only accept the 'goddidit' answer, she will embrace it and hold it dearer than almost all other things in her life, to the point that she'll happily send her sons to die in the name of her delusion. This has never been a mindset of the atheist. People aren't killed because of a lack of interest in philately, people have never been burned alive solely because they don't subscribe to Fortean Times. People today are however being killed by the sword, burned alive, genitally mutilated and vaporised by jet plane at their place of work in the name of god.
Hitler, baptised a catholic, never renounced his faith. Instead he reinforced it by doing god's work, with the pope's blessing in exchange for control of the German education system. And we all know the phrase 'gott mit uns'.
Stalin, an avowed atheist, was extremely shrewd in embracing and promoting the state church. He understood well the benefits of blind faith and obedience. He understood too well that the unthinking mind is easily controlled. He also understood that the church would remain mute when the killing started.
So enough of the nonsense theists, atheism and the scientific method are far more comfortable bed-fellows than theistic dogma and pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. No little girl has ever had her pudenda mutilated with a sharpened stone in the name of atheism, nobody has ever been stoned to death for not reading Hitchens and nobody has been burned alive for not nbelieving in magic and witches.
I long for the day when the theist can extol similar virtues in their belief/unbelief system.
 
Nihilianth said:
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. .
Click to expand...

Have you noted the change of your claim here? Your original point was that non-belief has resulted in negative outcomes. You seem to now be arguing that not all negative outcomes result from belief in God. Which noone ever claimed to be the case.

The argument that religion causes strife is self-evident. That it is but one of the ideologies that people believe in that causes strife is not necessarily justification or excuse for it.

Are you retracting your original claim that non-belief results in negative outcomes? If your argument is actually that non-religious beliefs can also be the source of problems then we agree. It's a somewhat trivial claim though.

Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well given that the Bible is where we learn about the Christian God its pretty much the only source we have to learn how to test the existence of this entity. Where else would you suggest we start?

How else could we ascertain the truth of claims made in the Bible about the existence of the Christian God without comparing Biblical claims to observed reality?

As for your dismissal of this evidence on what grounds do you make the assertion this isn't evidence? The case for the existence of the Christian God is contained in the Christian Bible. If we can show the Christian Bible to be an unreliable source of information then we can definitely call into question its veracity with respect to the existence of God.

In what way would that not be evidence?

For example, if (and I know it doesn't) the Bible said that God wiped frogs off the face of the planet never to be seen again then by finding an existent frog we show the Bible to be incorrect in this regard and (this bit is important) disprove the existence of the God defined as the eliminator of frogs.

If you now which to argue about the existence of another God definition that does not include the property of 'eliminating frogs' then we are talking about a different entity. This is no longer the same God. I would also argue that the argument for the existence of this new entity is severely undermined by the fact that it is merely a re-imagining of a previously discredited deity.

Now in the case of the Christian God of the Bible I think we now have identified enough of these kinds of errors of fact that we can say the Bible is not a reliable source of information on Gods and/or the Creation of the Universe. It may not be 'absolute proof' but its a pretty good set of evidence, especially when considered in conjunction with the absence of positive evidence to balance it.


Nihilianth said:
"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.
Click to expand...

So your God is meaningless and vacuous? Most people who claim to believe in God actually don't share this view in my experience and have some idea of what they think it is and what entity they profess belief in.

And yes, being 'able' to be defined in some meaningful way is a key part of not only being real but in being able to determine if something is real.

Otherwise the argument is 'I believe in something but I don't know what it is and I'm not going to tell you what it is' which is not only somewhat silly but is also distinctly NOT what the kind of people who profess religious beliefs that result in negative outcomes argue. They mostly seem pretty clear on what their God likes and dislikes what he wants and what he doesn't.
 
Gawdzilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dunno if it's psychosis. The underlying behavior is certainly the same, and easy to identify.
It's assuming a conclusion is true, and then rejecting any evidence that doesn't agree with the belief.
Thus, we have JAQ twoofers, and Christians with a god of the gaps.
If you disagree with them, then you are on the other side. The twoofers will call you a shill, the religious will name you as corrupted by Satan.
 
Mere theism or atheism don't lead to any particular actions. Christianity, communism, etc. do. It's meaningless to talk about the consequences of theism or atheism apart from specific religions or ideologies. Since hardly anyone here holds to the ideology of communism, what's the fuss about? Wouldn't it be more instructive to compare Christianity and humanism?
 
Nihilianth said:
Again, I say:

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

And then you said, "I always thought you couldn't prove a negative like that....", which would seem to indicate that you are unclear about the difference between evidence and proof. There is a great deal of evidence against the existence of all manner of gods. For example, most evangelical Christians claim that their god is omniscient, omnipotent and infallible, and yet his creation is claimed to be flawed and displeasing to him. This is a logical contradiction that serves as evidence in favor of the prospect that this god is a construct of human imagination.
 
Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic that you would characterize RossFw's response to you as stupid and them make the above argument. You are basically saying that religion isn't the only thing that can lead people to cause harm, therefor we should not criticize religion for the harm it has caused.

Using the Bible to argue the non-existence of God is just as stupid as using the Bible to argue the existence of God.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. The Bible makes certain claims and is held up by many as the word of God. Pointing out the logical inconsistencies and contradictions, as well as the evidence from historical analysis and textual criticism is a perfectly valid response to those claims.

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.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is evidence that a god who created the universe as we see it today some 6000 years ago does not exist.
 
Nihilianth said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see, when people act in negative ways, such as expressing racism or homophobia, it is acceptable to deride them, unless that negative behavior is derived from their religious beliefs, then it is inappropriate to respond derisively.

So the next time someone thinks that his religious beliefs give him the right to kill hundreds of innocent people, or the right to have sexual relations with underage members of his congregation, I'll be sure to remember not to express any derision regarding their acts.



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.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I have stated that religion is exclusively to blame for the world's strife. If you are going to throw around characterizations of stupidity, then you probably should learn to construct a cogent argument based on another person's actual position, rather than building strawmen. By the way, the Bible is chock full of descriptions of magical events, and as such it very much is a magic book.

magic |ˈmajik|
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces

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.)
Click to expand...
It strikes me as idiotic to call others "stupid" and then have the temerity to didactically chastise them for not being exceedingly polite. It makes you appear to be a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
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:





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.
Click to expand...

Ok, in that case I put myself outside of that line of reasoning. I will never actually make the claim "There is evidence God doesn't exist". What we have is plenty of evidence that it's made up. We also have no reasons to seriously consider God is real (At least the one depcited in humans' Bibles, which do nothing but reflect human's own anthropomorphic way to describe the world). But no, of course we don't have evidence God doesn't exist. We would have to have knowledge of every single corner in the Universe for that. But that logic applies to anything: We also don't have any evidence that Dr Manhattan doesn't exist, but we don't consider that a reasonable possibility.

Nihilianth said:
Russel's teapot aside, in ll seriousness, how is this belief comparable to Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy?
Click to expand...

They're all made up, like God. And, like God, there is no evidence they don't exist. Still, that doesn't make the argument that they could actually exist any stronger.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Nihilianth said:
There's scientific evidence that God is not real? Where? And here, I always thought you couldn't prove a negative like that....
Click to expand...
There's overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings people invented. There is no evidence gods are anything else.

Ergo.
 
Nihilianth said:
Bold portion: Why?
Click to expand...
Because people believing in falsehoods has an impact on all of us. Such people vote, they make bad decisions that affect other people, they become target markets resulting in wasted resources being used to produced useless products, and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom