Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are Athiests evil?

Options
24567…23

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't believe that I have read into anything. You stated that a lot of religious people are guilty of not thinking (and by extension, one can only assume that you believe a lot of non-religious are thinkers - insert' critical' or 'free' as you wish). As I have not encountered any basis to back up this belief, I can only assume it stems from a somewhat low opinion of those who choose to believe in a metaphysical being(s).

    I still don't understand why its so shocking to you. I must concede to find someone is faithful can be disappointing, but thats my business I don't treat them lesser I'm just more aware of there agenda(depending heavily on the nature of their beliefs of course). As an example when listening to drive time radio I prefer to listen to George Hook over the cynicism of Matt Cooper or the doom and gloom of rte anytime. From listening to him I began to see a pattern of him saying the odd pro catholic thing until I found he is a faithful catholic good or bad this changed my opinion of him and it also made a lot of sense. I still prefer listening to him but I have to keep in mind his pro catholic bias.


  • Options
    #33
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    As an agnostic I'd like to point out that there are several types of agnosticism.

    One type believes that it is not possible for man to understand the nature of God, ever.
    Another believes we dont know now but we might know in the future.
    Another type of agnosticism is of the kind that says "we dont seem to have any contact with God, nor does he seen to play any persceptible role in our lives, so.... meh *shrug*".

    There are plenty of other shades of gray too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic).

    Personally, I would be somewhere between the first type I mentioned and the last. I'm also particularly proud to be an agnostic because I believe we are the only group in the whole religious debate who arent black and white about it. We are the only group not professing to actually KNOW and that you should follow us. :)

    Sorry, but it twists my kacks when people lump agnostics in with atheists or mis-represent the position held by agnostics.




    We dont know and we think you don't either. :)



    DeV.


  • Options
    #34
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't believe that I have read into anything. You stated that a lot of religious people are guilty of not thinking (and by extension, one can only assume that you believe a lot of non-religious are thinkers - insert' critical' or 'free' as you wish). As I have not encountered any basis to back up this belief, I can only assume it stems from a somewhat low opinion of those who choose to believe in a metaphysical being(s).
    Thats caused by relativistic points of view Fanny. To explain, if someone came up to you and said they believed in little green fairies at the bottom of the garden, you might re-evaluate your opinion of their intelligence... no?

    Speaking as an observer outside of either of your frames of reference, CC is making the same mistake by making belief in God to be proof enough of inexact thinking. In that way it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

    To enter into the fray with my own opinion, I have known some extraordinaraily smart people who were priests and of very strong faith, so it cant be a direct correlation. I would have to say that there are a lot of lazy catholics around in terms of critical thought and its why the evils perpetrated by some priests was allowed to proceed for so long but it would have to be said there are a lot of "sheep" atheists too.

    All that can be said is that the more educated the person the less likely they are to be deeply religious in my experience. That can be for other reasons such as greed though...

    DeV.


  • Options
    #35
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    It's not shocking, it's irksome. I'll try my best to explain why.

    You have stated something about religious people in large. However, you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim. In light of this, the only possible basis for your opinion that I can think of (maybe it's because I'm a Christian :pac:) is that yours is an unobjective assumption. And that assumption is that you are right (there is no God(s)) and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong.

    I'm not denying that there are religious people with muddy thinking. But I don't give somebody a free pass as a clear thinker just because they happen not to believe in God.

    With regards to this debate, I believe that all you can say for sure are the following.

    Some people are clear thinkers. Some people are not clear thinkers.
    Some people are religious. Some people are not religious.

    These sentences are mutually exclusive. If you are one thing it does not automatically follow that you will be another. You, however, seem to think that you can easily pair the above options off. This is why I take umbrage to your statement.

    Let me be clear, CC, I'm not having a go at you - I apologise if it seems this way - I'm having a go at this notion.


  • Options
    #36
    santing
    Registered Users Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    DeVore wrote: »
    As an agnostic I'd like to point out that there are several types of agnosticism.

    One type believes that it is not possible for man to understand the nature of God, ever.
    Dev,

    As a Christian I completely agree with this viewpoint!
    I do believe however that God has reveals Himself - but in terms that are understandle by us.

    As Job said it long ago:
    Job 37:23-24 BBE There is no searching out of the Ruler of all: his strength and his judging are great; he is full of righteousness, doing no wrong. For this cause men go in fear of him; he has no respect for any who are wise in heart.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Well all I can say is I apologise for expressing my views. The only I thing I can do to dig myself out of this hole though is by saying something I don't agree with, I'd say havign crossed swords with your good self before. Fundamental to this is that I don't make claims to know the truth about the universe whereas I've experienced the religious to have done that very thing, I could simillarily make claims but I have no evidence but it seems like its alright for the religious to know almost to the detail the truth without any evidence and it closes them of to possibilities. Incidentily I've met very intelligent people too who are theists through my line of work but I don't think they focus their attention on what they believe thats already sowed up for them why worry about it no need to question of course that enters the realm of my opinion on them.


  • Options
    #38
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    sparkysrovers wrote: »
    I just find it very weird that atheists dont believe in anything.

    Oh I believe in lots of things. One of them being that there is no higher power.


  • Options
    #39
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    DeVore wrote: »
    Thats caused by relativistic points of view Fanny. To explain, if someone came up to you and said they believed in little green fairies at the bottom of the garden, you might re-evaluate your opinion of their intelligence... no?

    I don't think this is necessarily about intelligence. For example, we wouldn't argue over Newton's intelligence, yet he was a Christian as well as an alchemist. The former I would subscribe to, the latter I would dismiss (though who is to say that he may not yet be proved correct in that matter).

    As for not believing in fairies at the bottom of the Garden (an echo of Dawkins/ Adams), I don't believe that proposing false alternatives (I assume we can agree that the notion of fairies is untrue) is of huge significance. Most Christians understand the atheist position i.e. that ultimately all religions are as preposterous as the next. However, our position would be that if one belief is wrong it doesn't automatically follow that all beliefs are wrong.
    DeVore wrote: »
    Speaking as an observer outside of either of your frames of reference, CC is making the same mistake by making belief in God to be proof enough of inexact thinking. In that way it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

    Outside opinions are always welcome, especially if they happen to come from the big cheese himself ;)
    DeVore wrote: »
    I would have to say that there are a lot of lazy catholics around in terms of critical thought and its why the evils perpetrated by some priests was allowed to proceed for so long but it would have to be said there are a lot of "sheep" atheists too.

    Couldn't agree more.
    DeVore wrote: »
    All that can be said is that the more educated the person the less likely they are to be deeply religious in my experience. That can be for other reasons such as greed though...

    I glad you put that end sentence in there. It's always been the Christian contention that those with less will seek God more readily. (From the Christian perspective, that it may happen to be the wrong God is not significant). It's arguable that neither intelligence nor education are the significant factors on belief, rather a decrease in belief is down to the improved social standing (increased wealth, quality of life security to mention a few) that normally go hand in hand with education and intelligence.


  • Options
    #40
    GODROX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭GODROX


    Faith is believing in that which we do not see, the reward for that faith is seeing what we believe. . .
    St Augustine.


  • Options
    #41
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I assume we can agree that the notion of fairies is untrue

    Fanny, why are you quite happy to agree "that the notion of fairies in untrue" but not "that the notion of god is untrue" when there is a precisely equal amount of evidence for the existence of each?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Sangre wrote: »
    Oh I believe in lots of things. One of them being that there is no higher power.

    Yeah but that's not so much believing in something as believing... out... something...


  • Options
    #43
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Well all I can say is I apologise for expressing my views. The only I thing I can do to dig myself out of this hole though is by saying something I don't agree with, I'd say havign crossed swords with your good self before. Fundamental to this is that I don't make claims to know the truth about the universe whereas I've experienced the religious to have done that very thing, I could simillarily make claims but I have no evidence but it seems like its alright for the religious to know almost to the detail the truth without any evidence and it closes them of to possibilities. Incidentily I've met very intelligent people too who are theists through my line of work but I don't think they focus their attention on what they believe thats already sowed up for them why worry about it no need to question of course that enters the realm of my opinion on them.

    I think we all make certain claims about the truth of the universe. Yours is that there is no God. Similarly, I would assume you believe that your mother loves you and subscribe to the theory of gravity, evolution and the Big Bang etc. This debate isn't necessarily about universal truths, though. It is about your and my perception an the ability to think clearly depending on your religious persuasion.

    We are not going to agree here, CC. I apologise if I was forceful enough for you feel that you can't express your views. It was never my intent for you to feel this way. However, this is the internet, and it is quite natural to find people who disagree with views you hold dearly. Furthermore, it quite likely that this person will argue endlessly with you in futile attempts to change your mind :).


  • Options
    #44
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    DeVore wrote: »
    Personally, I would be somewhere between the first type I mentioned and the last. I'm also particularly proud to be an agnostic because I believe we are the only group in the whole religious debate who arent black and white about it. We are the only group not professing to actually KNOW and that you should follow us. :)

    You're quite wrong. I don't know a single atheist who professes to 'know' that god doesn't exist. (I'm sure somebody will pop up at this point to contradict me.)

    All atheists that I know choose not to believe without evidence, but are open to modifying that position on the basis of evidence that might yet be forthcoming. The only agnostic who I would consider to differ to any great extent from an atheist is your first type - the one who says we can never know. That, in short, god is unknowable. Which is a ridiculously premature stand to take given how much has been learned about our universe in even the last five years, let alone a hundred. Who could say for certain the truth can and will never be revealed? Or can you be agnostic about your agnosticism, in an infinite regression of unwillingness to have the courage of your convictions?


  • Options
    #45
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    santing wrote: »
    I do believe however that God has reveals Himself - but in terms that are understandle by us.

    ah yes, but if God is not understandable then how do you know that that was God?

    a lot of agnositics, while open to the idea of gods existing and even communicating with us, take the (reasonable) position that it is impossible for us to know if this is actually happening or not, and as such one cannot look at something and go "ah yes, this was definitely God talking to us"

    The only reasonable conclusion, from their point of view (and I would point out I'm not an agnostic) is too say that we don't know if it was or not, that we lack the ability to judge that it was. Rather unsatisfactory for a believer of course.


  • Options
    #46
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Fanny, why are you quite happy to agree "that the notion of fairies in untrue" but not "that the notion of god is untrue" when there is a precisely equal amount of evidence for the existence of each?

    Fair question, but I'm not interested in getting into the evidence debate again. We have had that chat all too often on this forum before.

    I'm unsure where you get the notion that there is 'precisely the same amounts of evidence for the existence of each'. Maybe to you there is (and I'm assuming you feel that it is all of the same quality), but if this is your opinion then I would suggest that you haven't explored the matter sufficiently.

    Whether you believe in Jesus' claims or not there is compelling for his existence. I've not seen similar evidence for fairies, nor am I aware of many (any?) intellectual luminaries (secular or otherwise) willing to devote their academic career to the study of fairies on the basis that they are real. Then there is the matter of my personal experiences and those of others. But let's not go there again :)
    rockbeer wrote: »
    You're quite wrong. I don't know a single atheist who professes to 'know' that god doesn't exist. (I'm sure somebody will pop up at this point to contradict me.)

    Here you go:
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081023155501AAPfL3k

    As an aside, I believe that most religious followers would say that they believe there is probably a God. So, in time honoured internet phraseology: 'the point is mute'.


  • Options
    #47
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    DeVore wrote: »
    We dont know and we think you don't either. :)

    that basically describes atheism.

    if you reject their religion as saying that they can't possible know if what they claim is actually real then you are basically saying their beliefs are false. That the concepts contained in the beliefs (a god, a creator etc), but the actual beliefs.

    the example often given is 3 men standing outside a room with a closed door. The men have never been inside and don't know what is in there.

    the first man says "I believe there is a pot of gold in that room." This is the believer. He has his reasons for thinking that, and they are perfectly reasonable to him. And no one can "prove" there isn't a pot of gold in there.

    the second man says "Don't be ridiculous, you can't possible know what it in the room. I totally reject that belief." This is the atheist. He strongly believes that the believer has no real clue what is in the room. To the atheist the pot of gold the believer thinks is in the room comes from the believers emotions, his desires and wishes, not from actual assessment that there is gold in the room. The atheist rejects the believer's idea, his faith, as simply wishful nonsense. Notice he isn't saying there isn't something in the room, heck he isn't saying there isn't gold in the room. What he is saying is that the believer has no clue, so he totally rejects the believer's assertions and beliefs.

    The agnostic looks at the believer and the atheist and thinks "I'm not so sure". The atheist has a point when he asks how does the believer know it is a pot of gold in the room. But equally, he is not so ready to reject out of hand the believers statements about the gold. The agnostic thinks to himself that perhaps the believer does actually know what is in the room, some how, some way. After all none of them can see into the room, so none of them can actually demonstrate to the others that there isn't a pot of gold in the room. Perhaps the atheist is right to reject the beliefs of the believer, but then again perhaps the believer knows something that the rest don't.The agnostic is not ready to fully embrace the believers faith, but he is not ready to agree with the atheist that the believer doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

    That is how I see it at least. It is not a question of knowing, it is a question of what you believe. For an atheist it is not necessarily a question of believing God doesn't exist, more that the believers don't have a clue and have simply imagined these concepts up.


  • Options
    #48
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Whether you believe in Jesus' claims or not there is compelling for his existence. I've not seen similar evidence for fairies, nor am I aware of many (any?) intellectual luminaries (secular or otherwise) willing to devote their academic career to the study of fairies on the basis that they are real.

    I think rockbeers point about the exact same amount of evidence was that the evidence for Jesus' existence is contained entirely in the accounts of the people who believed he existed.

    As you say many people, both in ancient times, and in modern times have believed he was a real person. You infer from that, perhaps not unreasonable, that therefore he probably was, because why would so many people, including people who have claimed to have met or had contact with him, believe he was real if the reality was otherwise.

    Interestingly this can be applied to a lot of other things, including fairies. There are plenty of people who believe in fairies, plenty of people who have claimed to have seen fairies or who have met people making such claims and who consider these people trust worthy.


  • Options
    #49
    Mc Love
    Registered Users Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Why? If me and a bunch of my friends tell you that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti monster, you'll ask for evidence. If we can't give you evidence, you're not going to believe. You accept the God concept because it's one you've been familiar with since childhood and which has broad acceptance, but there's no more proof for that than the FSM concept. All we're doing is refusing to believe in that which cannot be observed by some means, just as you would do for the FSM.

    Now if you want to believe in God, I've got no issue with it. I can even see why you'd try to convert people. But surely you can't find the atheist position that weird?
    Sorry man, did you read my post at all??

    I wouldnt call myself a devout christian by any stretch, but i do believe in god and prayer...however believing in the church is another matter altogether


  • Options
    #50
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think rockbeers point about the exact same amount of evidence was that the evidence for Jesus' existence is contained entirely in the accounts of the people who believed he existed.

    As you say many people, both in ancient times, and in modern times have believed he was a real person. You infer from that, perhaps not unreasonable, that therefore he probably was, because why would so many people, including people who have claimed to have met or had contact with him, believe he was real if the reality was otherwise.

    Interestingly this can be applied to a lot of other things, including fairies. There are plenty of people who believe in fairies, plenty of people who have claimed to have seen fairies or who have met people making such claims and who consider these people trust worthy.


    Indeed, and that brings us back to the evidence debate in large. As I've said, it doesn't interest me in going there again (maybe another day). However, my main point was that there was (or probably was in your opinion) a historical Jesus. Given this generally accepted fact (and I'm trying to avoid any discussion beyond that), I think it is reasonable to reject rockbeer's assertion that there is exactly the same amount (and quality) of evidence for Jesus as there is for fairies.


  • Options
    #51
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Indeed, and that brings us back to the evidence debate in large. As I've said, it doesn't interest me in going there again (maybe another day). However, my main point was that there was (or probably was in your opinion) a historical Jesus. Given this generally accepted fact (and I'm trying to avoid any discussion beyond that), I think it is reasonable to reject rockbeer's assertion that there is exactly the same amount (and quality) of evidence for Jesus as there is for fairies.

    sorry, perhaps my point didn't come across well in the last post (its late :pac:)

    there is exactly the same amount of evidence for a historical Jesus as there is for fairies, that being the accounts of people who claim these things existed. (if one takes the "amount" as being the number of people who claim to have actually seen either Jesus or fairies I would take there as being far more evidence for fairies than for historical Jesus)

    The reason that most people would be far more happy to accept there probably was, or could have been, a historical Jesus is not due to the evidence, but down the the plausibility of such a claim.

    This is contrasted with fairies. It isn't that the evidence for Jesus is more stronger than for fairies, it is that fairies are a highly implausible thing to actually exist, where as a man (and at this point we are assuming just that he was a man) who lead a small religious movement in the Roman times it quite plausible.

    All the accounts in the world would not make me think that fairies were actually real. There is another explanation going on behind the accounts. I can say that with almost certainty.

    My question to you would be is that what you do? Do you say that fairies are a highly implausible thing, so when people claim to have seen them I do not consider this evidence in that high a regard?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Indeed, and that brings us back to the evidence debate in large. As I've said, it doesn't interest me in going there again (maybe another day). However, my main point was that there was (or probably was in your opinion) a historical Jesus. Given this generally accepted fact (and I'm trying to avoid any discussion beyond that), I think it is reasonable to reject rockbeer's assertion that there is exactly the same amount (and quality) of evidence for Jesus as there is for fairies.

    What I actually said was there was precisely the same amount of evidence for the existence of fairies as for the existence of god.

    Introducing Jesus is a bit of a red herring. You as a christian not unreasonably equate Jesus with god, while I don't, although I recognise their is some amount of evidence (most of it hearsay) that Jesus existed as a historical figure.

    So let's say there is precisely the same amount of evidence that the historical Jesus was in fact god as that the things lots of fairy-seeing people claim to have seen were in fact fairies. i.e. just hearsay (and as Wicknight points out, considerably more of that for the fairies).

    Can we agree on that, at least?

    So, what I'm asking is why are you so quick to agree that the 'evidence' and personal experience of others regarding fairies is erroneous and the 'evidence' and your own experience regarding god is correct? Aren't fairies just as likely to exist as god? I'm just curious about why you find it so easy to dismiss one and accept the other.


  • Options
    #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    sparkysrovers wrote: »
    Sorry man, did you read my post at all??

    Yes. You believe in some form of God but are not of a specific Christian faith. An ex of yours was an atheist and you tried to convert her. You find the atheist position of not believing in any form of God to be "weird".

    I tried to explain the rationale of the atheist philosophy, at least from my perspective, so that you might see that it isn't very weird really. Did I miss something?
    sparkysrovers wrote: »
    I wouldnt call myself a devout christian by any stretch, but i do believe in god and prayer...however believing in the church is another matter altogether

    That's fair enough. You can understand why atheists reject the social structure that is the church, to an extent.


  • Options
    #54
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    So here we have a little cabal of athiests and I suppose I am curious as to what the devout think of our position? Since The Truth is so overwhelming and God is so Magnificent why do we not believe? Is it pride? Is it stupidity? Or are we tools of some evil force? Or are we part of gods plan, sent to try and test you?

    I can assure you that I personally won't be insulted by your answers so fire away!

    Good thread Amadeus.

    It's a difficult one to answer. The first thing I would say is that I think the agnostic position is more honest or rational that the atheist one. Of course people are free to believe whatever they like but nobody can say with any certainty that God doesn't exist. Therefore atheism is really an unsupportable position.

    Regarding your question, I can't work out why people have strong beliefs that God doesn't exist. Stupidity isn't the word I'd use, but pride and stubborness do come to mind. I don't think people naturally submit to a higher authority and people like to believe they're in charge of their own destiny.

    If someone starts from the position that they're not going to believe in God unless he reveals Himself, then this is for certain the wrong approach. There are numerous cases in scripture where it says that God resists the proud and exalts the humble. We're the creature, not the Creator. Pride is a BIG no-no in God's book.

    On the subject of "evil forces", as a Christian, I do believe that we're all subject to suggestions from the evil one and his minions that God doesn't exist. I believe that spirits have the power to suggest ideas to us but we always have the power to resist these suggestions.

    My impression is that most atheists have some faith in their early years and then loose it when they begin to question what they've been taught. So the question is why do some people retain their faith and why do other abandon it. I would like to suggest a few reasons:

    - Indifference of parents towards religion.
    - Hypocrisy shown people who claim to be religious.
    - Witness of suffering in the world
    - Life's difficulties can make people cynical/hard.
    - Attraction to worldly things.
    - Suggestions of the devil.
    - Peer pressure/ ridicule of believers.
    - Lack of religious education/knowledge of saints lives.
    - Rebellion against authority.

    The question "Are atheists evil?" is the wrong question. The person isn't evil but disbelief is according to Scripture. It's the rejection of one's Creator and the ultimate good.

    Also I would say anti-theism is far more serious that simple disbelief. What someone believes is their own business but to try imposing atheism on another is evil.

    Enough rambling from me for one night!

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #55
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    That often is a major factor in unbelief. The unwillingness to consider oneself the creature in a Creator/creature relationship.
    Yet I look up at the stars with or without my telescope and find myself humbled by the sheer vastness of it. It's not pride that I'm an atheist.
    sparkysrovers wrote: »
    I just find it very weird that atheists dont believe in anything.

    I believe there is no God. That's not a facetious comment - I actually do believe that. I also believe in the power of the human spirit (not soul) including after death in some circumstances. But that's not to say that I believe in a Christian/Judaic/Islamic/etc afterlife.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Also I would say anti-theism is far more serious that simple disbelief. What someone believes is their own business but to try imposing atheism on another is evil.

    I agree apart from the evil part - it's just intolerant not evil. But just to finish it off - imposing any belief, or lack of, on somebody else is wrong. It's a two way street. :)


  • Options
    #56
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Good thread Amadeus.

    It's a difficult one to answer. The first thing I would say is that I think the agnostic position is more honest or rational that the atheist one. Of course people are free to believe whatever they like but nobody can say with any certainty that God doesn't exist. Therefore atheism is really an unsupportable position.

    By the same logic, since nobody can say for certain that god does exist, surely theism is an equally unsupportable position.

    Of course in reality few if any atheists claim to know for certain that god doesn't exist so you've just knocked down a big old straw man. Well done. Believers, on the other hand, do claim to know for certain that god exists which really rather isolates them as the ones with the problem.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Regarding your question, I can't work out why people have strong beliefs that God doesn't exist. Stupidity isn't the word I'd use, but pride and stubborness do come to mind. I don't think people naturally submit to a higher authority and people like to believe they're in charge of their own destiny.

    You're looking for something sinister where there is nothing. I, at least, strongly believe god doesn't exist in just the same way that you, I presume, strongly believe that Osiris and Zeus and Shiva don't exist.

    It's honestly that simple.


  • Options
    #57
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    DeVore wrote: »
    Sorry, but it twists my kacks when people lump agnostics in with atheists or mis-represent the position held by agnostics.

    DeV.

    Yet we have a forum here which lumps them together ;) I've always disagreed with Atheists and Agnostics being put in the same boat - whether in conversation, criticism and in a forum title.


  • Options
    #58
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    (From the Christian perspective, that it may happen to be the wrong God is not significant).

    From my atheistic perspective that sentence actually negates any argument you might make. As I said already I do believe there is no God. But if I happen to be wrong whose to say who's God is the right one. Certainly not you or me. I'm very much a live and let live type of guy when it comes to religion - it's a personal thing between a person and his/her god or not. But that level of intolerance of other belief systems is why I have little tolerance for Christians & Jews who insist that there is only one true God and all others are heretics. Other religions are guilty of that too - I'm not singling your belief out here. But that remark is very reminiscent of Ratzinger's statement about other Christian religions being apostates. :mad:


  • Options
    #59
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    there is exactly the same amount of evidence for a historical Jesus as there is for fairies, that being the accounts of people who claim these things existed.

    It this 'exactly the same amount' phrase that I object to. I contend that there is not exactly the same amount or quality of evidence. However, if you really want to devalue the worth of a historical Jesus (again, we'll not argue over his divinity - we'll not agree there) by proving there is exactly the same amount of evidence as there is for fairies, I suggest that you find some credible sources that first argue their existence. After this, no doubt you will then go on to compare and contrast the evidence for the existence of fairies against that for Alexander The Great or Julius Caesar.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    My question to you would be is that what you do? Do you say that fairies are a highly implausible thing, so when people claim to have seen them I do not consider this evidence in that high a regard?

    TBH, I only mentioned personal experience as an aside, and in this regard, I was talking about my personal experience, not that of others. I also expressly stated directly afterwards that I did not want to get into such a debate again. However, by way of a brief response, I've never discussed with anybody their personal experience with fairies. So I don't know. If I'm being perfectly honest, I have probably give the notion for fairies about as much thought as most people who have rejected them - maybe yourself included.
    rockbeer wrote:
    Introducing Jesus is a bit of a red herring. You as a christian not unreasonably equate Jesus with god, while I don't, although I recognise their is some amount of evidence (most of it hearsay) that Jesus existed as a historical figure.

    I don't agree that my insistence on mentioning Jesus here is a red herring. That Jesus is divine is fundamental to Christianity.
    rockbeer wrote:
    So let's say there is precisely the same amount of evidence that the historical Jesus was in fact god as that the things lots of fairy-seeing people claim to have seen were in fact fairies. i.e. just hearsay (and as Wicknight points out, considerably more of that for the fairies).

    Can we agree on that, at least?

    Sorry, I don't believe so. I've never had any personal experience of fairies. Indeed, as I've stated, I've never heard anyone's reasons for believing in fairies.
    rockbeer wrote:
    So, what I'm asking is why are you so quick to agree that the 'evidence' and personal experience of others regarding fairies is erroneous and the 'evidence' and your own experience regarding god is correct? Aren't fairies just as likely to exist as god? I'm just curious about why you find it so easy to dismiss one and accept the other.

    I reject them probably for much the same reasons as you do. I accept that Jesus is God by considering much of the evidence for his existence and also my own personal experience. It is an historical claim, so I weighed up the truth of it against the evidence available. Again, this was probably much in the same way that you came to reject the existence of a being that is not testable.


  • Options
    #60
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Macros42 wrote: »
    From my atheistic perspective that sentence actually negates any argument you might make. As I said already I do believe there is no God. But if I happen to be wrong whose to say who's God is the right one. Certainly not you or me. I'm very much a live and let live type of guy when it comes to religion - it's a personal thing between a person and his/her god or not. But that level of intolerance of other belief systems is why I have little tolerance for Christians & Jews who insist that there is only one true God and all others are heretics. Other religions are guilty of that too - I'm not singling your belief out here. But that remark is very reminiscent of Ratzinger's statement about other Christian religions being apostates. :mad:

    It's not intolerance, so you can put the angry faces away. I actually think that you are looking for something to get angry over. It is quite simple. Not all religions can be correct. Not too dissimilar to your position as an atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    .....
    - Indifference of parents towards religion.
    - Hypocrisy shown people who claim to be religious.
    - Witness of suffering in the world
    - Life's difficulties can make people cynical/hard.
    - Attraction to worldly things.
    - Suggestions of the devil.
    - Peer pressure/ ridicule of believers.
    - Lack of religious education/knowledge of saints lives.
    - Rebellion against authority.

    I wonder Noel have you ever read into why people do hold beliefs detailed from those on my side of the argument.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    The question "Are atheists evil?" is the wrong question. The person isn't evil but disbelief is according to Scripture. It's the rejection of one's Creator and the ultimate good.

    To use the scripture card seems cylically redundant to me, what I mean by that is that there is no conclusive evidence that its the truth and for me to use to change my position to theism I'd almost have to be a theist from the start and always. I get the impression Noel you think everyone is a closet theist would I be right?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Also I would say anti-theism is far more serious that simple disbelief. What someone believes is their own business but to try imposing atheism on another is evil.....

    By that definition is evangelising evil?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement