Atheist = narrow-minded

ThrownAway

Would you call someone who dismisses the concept of a God ect. entirely, narrow-minded?

...And I guess you could also say ''Would you call someone who dismisses the concept of magic fairy goblins entirely, narrow-minded?''

...But if there's no proof to that both magic fairy goblins and Gods don't exist how could some dismiss it completely.

To me right now the thought of goblins and faries is ridiculous and I can saftely say I don't believe they exist. But I don't know if they exist, nobody knows.

If atheism is a lack of belief [as an Atheist might say] then isn't that like saying ''I'm an Atheist, I know God doesn't exist'' hence Atheists being narrow-minded. A religios person would say ''I believe'' while a Atheist would say ''I know''.

Religious people also say "I know", they're quite sure of it sometimes

ThrownAway

Not all though, not all.... As you said only sometimes.

You often hear people say ''Well we believe as Catholics...'' . [but my point still stands that I think that they are less open-minded as a whole in comparaion to religios people] Also because I have yet to come across an Atheist that calls Atheism a belief. I think they're unlike religious people in this way.

If someone can't understand, that, if someone said they know and have no proof means that they actually only believe... then I would consider them to be a narrow-minded person.

Son Goku

ThrownAway wrote:

If someone can't understand, that, if someone said they know and have no proof means that they actually only believe... then I would consider them to be a narrow-minded person.

Then we are all narrow minded, because there is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist.
That would be far too broad a category for considering somebody narrow minded.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist.

Zillah

Define "narrow minded". Seriously. Put it in words and we'll go from there.

stevejazzx

ThrownAway wrote:

Would you call someone who dismisses the concept of a God ect. entirely, narrow-minded?

No. I would call him an atheist. I would imagine he bases ideas on sound science and a history of examining the alternate belief structures and thier
merits.

thrownaway wrote:

...And I guess you could also say ''Would you call someone who dismisses the concept of magic fairy goblins entirely, narrow-minded?''

Scientific evidence would lead to us conclude that such mytical creatures are entirely ficticous. Considering the path of the myth and story through time, the handing down of tales etc and the fact that they were never meant to real in the first place would require a person to very close minded to believe in such things as he would have to ignore the body of factual evidence negating the existance of such.

thrownaway wrote:

...But if there's no proof to that both magic fairy goblins and Gods don't exist how could some dismiss it completely.

Son Goku has answered this part excellently.

thrownaway wrote:

To me right now the thought of goblins and faries is ridiculous and I can saftely say I don't believe they exist. But I don't know if they exist, nobody knows.

It would be more logical to believe in their non existance as the evidence to the contrary far far far far outways the evidence (essentially stories) to the postive. Again only an extremely close minded person would consider believing in fairies goblins etc.

throwaway wrote:

If atheism is a lack of belief [as an Atheist might say] then isn't that like saying ''I'm an Atheist, I know God doesn't exist'' hence Atheists being narrow-minded. A religios person would say ''I believe'' while a Atheist would say ''I know''.

For me atheism is a belief. I am open to ideas of higher forces in the universe, just not God as he is portrayed in popular culture, that is something I will never believe in because he has been humanised and recorded by people almost 2000 years ago.
These people were primitive and scared of the world. I feel it is ignorant to live your life in accordance to what was thought back then.

The human race has progressed and civilised and science has discovered the strong and weak forces, electromagnetism and gravity. The physicality of the universe is apparent if not entirely explainable at this point.

So essentially your argument of close mindedness falls flat on its face because someone who entertains ideas of magiacal fairies and goblins etc would have to be extremely close minded to deny the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
This is daft.

Funsterdelux

Zillah wrote:

Define "narrow minded". Seriously. Put it in words and we'll go from there.

I would like to hear from Sideshow Mel, eh sorry Zillah on this one too,

hullaballoo

Comparing atheism to a structured religion is a bit like comparing apples and beef. They're both foods (for thought), but that is where the comparison ends.

Atheism stems from a sceptical view of religion and in reality, a generally more studied mental process is its root. For most atheists (I have found), renouncing God/s was a fairly major step with an extensive and decisive thought process preceding.

The discussion here (as with many discussions) is mooted by the general tone of the OP. You cannot condemn every atheist to petty/narrow-mindedness just because you think that they think something in particular. Just in the same way that I cannot say, "all women have a design to hurt men stemming from an innate feeling of oppression and inferiority passed down through our ancestry", you cannot say, "all atheists are narrow-minded".

stevejazzx

hullaballoo wrote:

, "all women have a design to hurt men stemming from an innate feeling of oppression and inferiority passed down through our ancestry".

I knew it...!

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Scientific evidence would lead to us conclude that such mytical creatures are entirely ficticous. Considering the path of the myth and story through time, the handing down of tales etc and the fact that they were never meant to real in the first place would require a person to very close minded to believe in such things as he would have to ignore the body of factual evidence negating the existance of such.

It would be more logical to believe in their non existance as the evidence to the contrary far far far far outways the evidence (essentially stories) to the postive. Again only an extremely close minded person would consider believing in fairies goblins etc.

So essentially your argument of close mindedness falls flat on its face because someone who entertains ideas of magiacal fairies and goblins etc would have to be extremely close minded to deny the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

There's scientific evidence for the non-existence of mythical creatures?

Surely you mean there's a lack of scientific evidence for them, and a reasonable alternative explanation?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Beruthiel

Atheist = narrow-minded

I think you've got that backwards.
I can just as easily say:
follows one religion without question = narrow-minded.

An Atheist cannot be narrow minded. Most of us have been brought up in a religion, somewhere along the way we started asking questions, did some searching of ourselves and the way certain things have been presented to us, at the end of that, we came to a conclusion. That's very open minded imo.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Surely you mean there's a lack of scientific evidence for them, and a reasonable alternative explanation?

It would tiresome to go into it so..... yes.


essentia cordialis

steve

Zombrex

ThrownAway wrote:

If atheism is a lack of belief [as an Atheist might say] then isn't that like saying ''I'm an Atheist, I know God doesn't exist'' hence Atheists being narrow-minded. A religios person would say ''I believe'' while a Atheist would say ''I know''.

An atheist doesn't say "I know", he says "I don't believe that" ...

Is saying "Despite what he claims, I don't believe Michael Jackson has a strange undocumented skin disorder that required him to have all those years of plastic surgery turning him effectly into a white person" make me narrow minded or as I would term "not an idiot".

Or saying "Despite his couch jumping antics I don't believe Tom Cruise is 'madly in love' with Katie Homes" make me narrow minded

There is open minded and then there is accepting obvious bull sh1t at face value

pH

It seems there's 2 entirely separate things being argued about. A philosophical 'definition' of existence, and ordinary practical everyday proof.

Let's take vampires for a moment.

I don't believe vampires exist.

Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?

To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.

So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.

If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.

But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.

Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

Zombrex

I can't prove Wacko Jacko doesn't have a serious skin disorder requiring him to have plastic surgery, but I don't believe him when he, on Oprah, says he does

When did people abandom common sense for scientific imperialism?

ThrownAway

My poor example of mythical creatures. Sketch that and put in something never thought up by man before, something unheard of. Does an Atheist already say no it doesn't exist without ever hearing it out. Say a new theory comes out does an Atheist alrealy say, without even considering it, I don't believe.

From this thread I realise that being an Atheist can mean allot of different things. Maybe to some it just means one. It was said that most Atheists were brought up religiously and after considering religions is now an Atheist. What about the stuff you don't know. Yeah, you don't belive in A and you don't believe in B but what about C the unknown/unheard of.

I know there are allot of things we are technically Agnostic on but functionally Atheist but I'm talking in terms of religion... Coming to conclusions is cutting out any future possibilities and what exactly are you coming to a conclusion on - something with no evidence. You're coming to a conclusion on something that can't yet be concluded because nobody knows. There are many different possibilities. We're not talking about two plus two equals four here it's something that doesnt have an answer but yet people make their minds up. It's like people can't cope with the fact that you don't know and then come to a conclusion that there's nothing. To feel in control. The same goes for a religious person.

The more than likley outcome is not always the outcome in the end.

Zombrex

ThrownAway wrote:

Does an Atheist already say no it doesn't exist without ever hearing it out.

Atheism referrers to thesim, the belief in supernatural gods. That theory has pretty much been heard out at this stage.

ThrownAway wrote:

Say a new theory comes out does an Atheist alrealy say, without even considering it, I don't believe.

Impossible to tell, since an atheist doesn't have a fixed belief system. One atheist could think and believe in a completely different way to another. One atheist might accept your new theory out right, the other might reject it out right.

You cannot draw any conclusions since Atheism doesn't instruct you how to think. It is a description, not a religion.

ThrownAway wrote:

Yeah, you don't belive in A and you don't believe in B but what about C the unknown/unheard of.

A & B would have to be God and gods.

Thats about it really. C can be anything, and it is up to the person themselves to believe in it or not

I think you might be drawing to big a conclusion from the term atheism. It is not necessarily the same as humanism, the idea that the material world that we experience is all there is, though a lot of atheists are humanists and vice versa.

Asiaprod

Beruthiel wrote:

Atheist = narrow-minded

I think you've got that backwards.
I can just as easily say:
follows one religion without question = narrow-minded.

You took the words out of my mouth. There is no way that I can see Atheists as being narrow-minded. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true, they are some of the most open-minded people one is likely to meet. I think in honesty it would be very easy to make the case that followers of religions are narrow-minded. Take a look at the creation thread. If thats not narrow-minded I don't know what is.

Zillah

Funsterdelux wrote:

I would like to hear from Sideshow Mel, eh sorry Zillah on this one too,

Ya wha?

ThrownAway wrote:

Does an Atheist already say no it doesn't exist without ever hearing it out. Say a new theory comes out does an Atheist alrealy say, without even considering it, I don't believe.

See, this is why I asked for a definition above. Thanks for ignoring that by the way. These type of discussions always go in circles until people realise they're using different applications of terms.

Lets assume for now that you mean "rejects things without consideration" to be "narrow-minded". In that case, there is no aswer for "are atheists narrow minded?", because the conclusion is irrelevant, its how they came to their conclusion. You could have a very close minded atheist who has said "Pff, religion is for losers" and remained completely ignorant of other beliefs, but he's still an atheist, as much an atheist as the guy who went to great effort exploring other beliefs in huge detail, researching their validity and concluded that the existence of God was a fantasy created by scared/ignorant humans.

From this thread I realise that being an Atheist can mean allot of different things. Maybe to some it just means one. It was said that most Atheists were brought up religiously and after considering religions is now an Atheist. What about the stuff you don't know. Yeah, you don't belive in A and you don't believe in B but what about C the unknown/unheard of.

C is irrelevant in terms of Atheism. An atheist could be very open minded about "C" because he doesn't know enough, or he could say "C?! C is the biggest load of crap since cold fusion bread!" Atheism relates to a belief in God/Gods, nothing more. Atheists are often extremely sceptical, but thats not a rule.

Coming to conclusions is cutting out any future possibilities and what exactly are you coming to a conclusion on - something with no evidence. You're coming to a conclusion on something that can't yet be concluded because nobody knows.

You start at the start. The start is "nothing exists". Then you observe. I see the sky, I see the ground, physics, light, sound, biology and all the wonderful things that science has shown us. I conclude that all these things exist. Some guy hands me a book and says "God exists!" I read the book, do research and see no reason to add this mysterious being to the "existence list".

The default setting for anything is "does not exist", and if there is sufficient evidence for the thing existing, then you accept its existence. There is not a shred of evidence for God. There is a book that was written by shepards, there is specious and disingenuous pseudo-science, there are "miracles" that have much more logical explanations (medical miracles always involve things that could have been cured anyway, no one's broken bones suddenly reset at Lourdes, no one's jagged knife scars vanish at Fatima) and there is the shouting insistence of believers.

So no, God doesn't get onto the VIP "does exist" list. Part the English Channel so I can walk to France and we'll see.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

Part the English Channel so I can walk to France and we'll see.

or get Wicknight laid?:D or give robindich a sense of humor;)
oh oh oh or and I admit this is a pretty big ask, but I would really believe in him if he did, get scofflaw to stop writing cordially every post......:o


hmmm probably shouldn't post this.....ahhhhhh..

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

or get Wicknight laid?:D

please ... help .... me ....










joking, I get laid all the time, I'm The Todd, HIGH 5!!! :cool:

Sam Vimes

being religious requires narrow-mindedness in my opinion. there are dozens, if not hundreds of religions in the world each teaching different things. there is no more proof for any one over the other. people generally believe one over all others simply because their parents and neighbours did. now that's closed-minded.

ian paisly dedicated his life to the protestant religion* but if he'd been born 5 miles down the road he'd certainly be just as fervent in his support of catholicism. It makes no logical sense. it requires making decisions based on nothing but prejudice





*his bastardised, evil version of it

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

or get Wicknight laid?:D or give robindich a sense of humor;)
oh oh oh or and I admit this is a pretty big ask, but I would really believe in him if he did, get scofflaw to stop writing cordially every post......:o


hmmm probably shouldn't post this.....ahhhhhh..

Oh dear, you've not been paying attention:)
give robindich a sense of humor;)...He has a great one, warped I grant you, but there.
but I would really believe in him if he did, get scofflaw to stop writing cordially every post......Better get out your prayer book then, you've not been reading the creation thread. When was your last confession?:p

<This is humor, I hope>

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

Oh dear, you've not been paying attention:)

oh asiaprod I've been paying far too much intention, and yes tis humor..I'm not a mentalist......

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

oh asiaprod I've been paying far too much intention, and yes tis humor..I'm not a mentalist......

It is amazing how words when typed get misunderstood. My appologies.

This <This is humor, I hope> when it has those <...> around it means the same as *...* . I am talking about myself, not you. I hope what I said is seen as humor:(

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

It is amazing how words when typed get misunderstood. My appologies.

This <This is humor, I hope> when it has those <...> around it means the same as *...* . I am talking about myself, not you. I hope what I said is seen as humor:(

just realised I wrote intention instead of attention, damn, now zillah is going to post my mistake.....I just know it! some southern style mockery coming up alluding to my various mallaproprian slips....

ScumLord

One thing I don't like about the Athiest arguement is the constant mention of goblins and ghosts. I don't think it's fair to lump these things in with spiritual beliefs which are a way of life while vampires are just a tale of things that go bumb in the night. The two things are not really in the same league, sure they could both be made up and are probably linked (believe in God and the vampires won't get you) but I think it's slightly insulting to believers.

Which is another thing. Athiest get so angery about religion they almost seem to care more about their non-belief than religious types do about believing. Lately whenever I've seen a debate between Athiest and believers the Athiest always lose their tempers and begin belittling the believers with name calling.

As a somewhat unbiased bystander in the arguement I think Athiests are looking worse in arguements as they tend to lose the cool. believers seem to have become comfortable with the scientific fact that athiests can't disprove God.

I think sticking to any particular viewpoint and not being open to the possibility your wrong is narrowmindedness and both sides are guilty of that.

pH

ScumLord wrote:

One thing I don't like about the Athiest arguement is the constant mention of goblins and ghosts. I don't think it's fair to lump these things in with spiritual beliefs which are a way of life while vampires are just a tale of things that go bumb in the night.

That's just not a fair assessment of what's going on. If someone uses the "can't disprove" argument (for God) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.

The two things are not really in the same league, sure they could both be made up and are probably linked (believe in God and the vampires won't get you) but I think it's slightly insulting to believers.

Explain why the 2 things are not in the same league

Which is another thing. Athiest get so angery about religion they almost seem to care more about their non-belief than religious types do about believing. Lately whenever I've seen a debate between Athiest and believers the Athiest always lose their tempers and begin belittling the believers with name calling.

I see very little evidence of anger and name calling. Exasperation perhaps, and some good natured ribbing. See I haven't even made fun of you for attacking atheists without taking the time to spell the word correctly.

As a somewhat unbiased bystander in the arguement I think Athiests are looking worse in arguements as they tend to lose the cool. believers seem to have become comfortable with the scientific fact that athiests can't disprove God.

Tend to lose their cool ... how many examples of this have you seen? You are implying that it happens quite a lot.

I think sticking to any particular viewpoint and not being open to the possibility your wrong is narrowmindedness and both sides are guilty of that.

I think most posters here do evaluate other points of view. You seem to be saying that we do see some merit in them, but due to being stubborn and narrow-minded we dismiss them. That is untrue (at least in my case) - I dismiss them because after evaluating them I remain unconvinced.

robindch

> Athiest get so angery about religion

Well, why shouldn't they? As far as I can see, it causes more unpleasantness in the world than any other single cause.

And anyhow, while I'll be first to say that I've been cheerfully rude about religious beliefs in the past (though usually not about the people who hold them), I will also say that I'm also the only person 'round these parts who's been personally and recently condemned to an eternity in a lake of burning fire in hell by a spokeperson for a religion of "love".

Which, you may agree, could be considered far more personally offensive than anything that any of us has said about the religious folks.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote:

> Athiest get so angery about religion

I will also say that I'm also the only person 'round these parts who's been personally and recently condemned to an eternity in a lake of burning fire in hell by a spokeperson for a religion of "love".

Was having some lunch with work colleauges, and when one of them found out i was an atheist she was shocked, now she doesn't talk to me and has said, get this, 'I'm setting a bad example for son and should be ashamed of myself'.:eek: Most offensive thing anyones ever said to me.

No scumlord, I do think you've got that Atheist anger thing arse about face, if you'll pardon mon francais.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

oh oh oh or and I admit this is a pretty big ask, but I would really believe in him if he did, get scofflaw to stop writing cordially every post......:o


hmmm probably shouldn't post this.....ahhhhhh..

It's a dreadful habit, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ScumLord

Explain why the 2 things are not in the same league

Like I said one is a way of life the others are just horror tales.

See I haven't even made fun of you for attacking atheists without taking the time to spell the word correctly.

Ah don't worry you'll get plenty more chances to, I can't spell for poo.

Tend to lose their cool ... how many examples of this have you seen? You are implying that it happens quite a lot.

In my experience it does, just about every debate I've seen on the tele saw the Atheist get all hot and bothered by the religious types.

robindch

> just about every debate I've seen on the tele saw the Atheist get all
> hot and bothered by the religious types.

Um, where exactly? Other than Dawkins earlier on in the year on Channel Four, I can't recall offhand any atheist being given airtime before, either with religious types or not....

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

It's a dreadful habit, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Finally, conclusive proof there is no god.

pH

ScumLord wrote:

Like I said one is a way of life the others are just horror tales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_lifestyle

stevejazzx

ScumLord wrote:

Like I said one is a way of life the others are just horror tales.

Ah don't worry you'll get plenty more chances to, I can't spell for poo.

In my experience it does, just about every debate I've seen on the tele saw the Atheist get all hot and bothered by the religious types.

I really don't see where you get this idea. In my experience it's the opposite.
The atheists in this forum are all calm, and on the whole I find this forum the most enligthening of all on boards. I find that the level of posting is above standrd and generally interesting making it for me anyway, one of the most engaging forums on here. Whenever there's disagreement it's more a battle of minds than anything 'alse.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Finally, conclusive proof there is no god.

I've been called that before...

sadly,
Scofflaw

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

Like I said one is a way of life the others are just horror tales.

Wait, so whats your argument? Not the same "league" of what sort? Respect? Potential of being accurate? What?

The fact that someone has dedicated their life to something that is ridiculous doesn't make that thing any less ridiculous. Perhaps the wise/kind person would show great respect and care when discussing said ridiculous thing, but thats a personal choice. I may be arguably wise, but I'm far from kind nor do I suffer fools lightly.

Also, do you not accept the logic of the following: "That's just not a fair assessment of what's going on. If someone uses the "can't disprove" argument (for God) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief." - Spake the venerable pH.

As a somewhat unbiased bystander in the arguement I think Athiests are looking worse in arguements as they tend to lose the cool. believers seem to have become comfortable with the scientific fact that athiests can't disprove God.

Nor can they disprove goblins, or fairies, or the flying spaghetti monster, or invisible pink unicorns the size of pluto in my spleen...theres an infinate number of things we can't disprove, thats a terrible, disingenuous argument.

In my experience it does, just about every debate I've seen on the tele saw the Atheist get all hot and bothered by the religious types.

Examples please? In my experience the religious have a tendency to fly off the handle because their beliefs are invariably based on irrational thought processes; hence they get upset during discussions.

When I first started on this forum my first impression was "Wow...they're like..talking...about religion...but not throwing hissy fits and screaming at each other...this is incredible..."

My personal experiences have been an exact inversion of yours.

My final point shall be to say that atheists are not an organisation, we do not share beliefs as a group, habits, behaviours or tendencies. The only thing that all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in God(s).

Valmont

Son Goku wrote:

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist.

That is the way I would consider myself and if more people recognised that about athiests a lot of pointless threads would be avoided.

Sam Vimes

ScumLord wrote:

Like I said one is a way of life the others are just horror tales.

Ah don't worry you'll get plenty more chances to, I can't spell for poo.

In my experience it does, just about every debate I've seen on the tele saw the Atheist get all hot and bothered by the religious types.

may i refer you to ian paisley, or archbishop mc quaid or any muslim cleric that gives those insane speeches or the people who organised the crusades or the people who crashed planes into the WTC or the people who blew up and continue to blow up the north of ireland or the people who burned witches at the stake or the people who sent their daughters to the magdeline laundries because they were raped or the people who started quite a large number of wars or...........

yes, the atheists get angry more easily.

possibly they do. if you were in an argument where somebody insisted that black was white and you were wrong because you couldn't prove it wasn't i think you'd get fairly annoyed


i may not be able to explain how the matter in the universe came into existence but i base my opinions on the available evidence, not on what a 2000 year old book tells me coupled with a fear of death. there is zero evidence that a higher being had any interaction with our universe, hence i don't believe it.

the idea that we should believe simply because we can't prove he DOESN'T exist is just silly. the main argument against this is the church of the flying spaghetti monster which people have mentioned. any time someone says "you can't prove he doesn't exist", an atheist brings up the question of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and instantly wins the argument.


in fact, in order to prove that god doesn't exist, a person would have to check every inch of the comsos throughout the whole of time. in other words, to conclusively disprove the existence of god, one would have to become a god. this is not an argument for believing in him/her/it

ScumLord

stevejazzx wrote:

I really don't see where you get this idea. In my experience it's the opposite.

Well fair enough so but it's because of the following.

Commander Vimes wrote:

possibly they do. if you were in an argument where somebody insisted that black was white and you were wrong because you couldn't prove it wasn't i think you'd get fairly annoyed

Sorry I should have made that clearer Atheists do tend to get very annoyed when believers won't accept scientific fact, I didn't mean to imply that their all miserable know it Alls that look down their noses at believers. Especially when their not able to stop talking and walk away like on TV, I can't recall which show it was that made me start this post it was some late night chat show thing on UTV I think.

in fact, in order to prove that god doesn't exist, a person would have to check every inch of the comsos throughout the whole of time.

You'd have to go further than that, God (allegedly) created the universe which kind of implies there's somewhere else outside this universe where God lives.

I just think it ruins the whole non-God argument when Atheists resort to things like the spaghetti monster theory and making fun of believers when if your basing your argument in science and can't say for absolute certainty that their is no God of any description.

If you do that your as bad as religious zealots that stick their fingers in their ears and stamp their feet on the ground instead of listen to something they don't want to hear.

......the north of ireland or the people who burned witches at the stake or the people who sent their daughters to the magdeline laundries because they were raped or the people who started quite a large number of wars or...........

You can pick out every bad thing if you want and make democracy look like the worst system ever. There is Christian aid, Muslims give something like 10-25% of their wealth to charity every year, Mother Theresa, The missionary's while they did allot of harm in Africa did teach 1000's of Africans to read and write. Faith gets people through really difficult times even if it is all in peoples heads. People may be Christian and do bad things but that doesn't change the fact the rules say you should be nice. Religion is not 100% bad I wouldn't even say it's 50% bad, millions of kind acts happen every day that don't get reported like the wars do.

stevejazzx

ScumLord wrote:

Well fair enough so but it's because of the following.

Sorry I should have made that clearer Atheists do tend to get very annoyed when believers won't accept scientific fact, I didn't mean to imply that their all miserable know it Alls that look down their noses at believers. Especially when their not able to stop talking and walk away like on TV, I can't recall which show it was that made me start this post it was some late night chat show thing on UTV I think.

You'd have to go further than that, God (allegedly) created the universe which kind of implies there's somewhere else outside this universe where God lives.

I just think it ruins the whole non-God argument when Atheists resort to things like the spaghetti monster theory and making fun of believers when if your basing your argument in science and can't say for absolute certainty that their is no God of any description.

If you do that your as bad as religious zealots that stick their fingers in their ears and stamp their feet on the ground instead of listen to something they don't want to hear.

You can pick out every bad thing if you want and make democracy look like the worst system ever. There is Christian aid, Muslims give something like 10-25% of their wealth to charity every year, Mother Theresa, The missionary's while they did allot of harm in Africa did teach 1000's of Africans to read and write. Faith gets people through really difficult times even if it is all in peoples heads. People may be Christian and do bad things but that doesn't change the fact the rules say you should be nice. Religion is not 100% bad I wouldn't even say it's 50% bad, millions of kind acts happen every day that don't get reported like the wars do.

Your arguments are quite poor. Lets keep religon because it's nice, sometimes, for some people is essentially the gist of your ramblings here.

pH

ScumLord wrote:

Well fair enough so but it's because of the following.

Sorry I should have made that clearer Atheists do tend to get very annoyed when believers won't accept scientific fact, I didn't mean to imply that their all miserable know it Alls that look down their noses at believers. Especially when their not able to stop talking and walk away like on TV, I can't recall which show it was that made me start this post it was some late night chat show thing on UTV I think.

I find that mildly offensive. You saw one person (how do you know he or she was actually and atheist?) on some late night chat show (that you can't recall the name of) and from that you make a huge generalisation?

I just think it ruins the whole non-God argument when Atheists resort to things like the spaghetti monster theory and making fun of believers when if your basing your argument in science and can't say for absolute certainty that their is no God of any description.

Now I think you're trolling - Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented and used as an attack on Intelligent Design, not as some sort of proof in God's non existence.

As you think it ruins the 'whole non-God' argument, what do you think is the correct 'non-God argument' that you subscribe to?

ScumLord

Lets keep religon because it's nice, sometimes, for some people is essentially the gist of your ramblings here.

I'm saying relgion probably has a valid purpose in human society (outside of the established churchs) and we shouldn't dicount it just because the major religions seem wrong.

You saw one person (how do you know he or she was actually and atheist?)

Because it was a debate on religion in modern society and he said he was an atheist.

Zillah

I conclude that Scumlord has lost any disagreements so far. Couple that with a great loss of face on his part and we have a nicely rounded conclusion.

(Forgive me if I'm a little pissy that my post has been ignored twice.)

adam_ccfc

ThrownAway wrote:

...But if there's no proof to that both magic fairy goblins and Gods don't exist how could some dismiss it completely.

Conversely, if there is no proof that "god" does exist, would you call those who do believe in "god" narrow minded aswell?

robindch

It's arguable that people who reject the existence of other gods besides their own one(s), are behaving in a narrow-minded way, when the evidence for both sets of deities is the same (ie, old stories and tradition).

On the opposite side, you could point out that there's as much evidence for god as there is for the invisible pink unicorn currently standing beside me, so why shouldn't I claim that it is there? Should one go further and assert that everything one can think of (and everything one can't) exist because it can't be proven that it doesn't? Isn't that being open-minded to the extent that one's brain falls out?

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

One thing I don't like about the Athiest arguement is the constant mention of goblins and ghosts. I don't think it's fair to lump these things in with spiritual beliefs which are a way of life while vampires are just a tale of things that go bumb in the night.

That is why they are used as examples.

At one people seriously, and I mean burning at the stake seriously, believed in things that today we would consider nonsense fairy tales and "bumb in the night" silliness.

Heck, Christians even today still burn Harry Potter books and attempt to ban films like The Craft because they believe that witchcraft and black magic really exists.

To most people this is nonsense, even religious people. This is why atheists use these as examples to explain the atheists way of thinking. Why do we consider these things such as witch craft as nonsense today when they were considered as literal fact only a few hundred years ago. Once a person understands that, they can begin to understand where atheists are coming from.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

I'm saying relgion probably has a valid purpose in human society (outside of the established churchs) and we shouldn't dicount it just because the major religions seem wrong..

I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe what ever they wish, even if I do not agree with such a belief.

But that applies to atheists as well. Why shouldn't they ignore the teachings of a religion if they don't believe in it? It would be rather hypocritical of them not to, would it not.

5uspect

What makes these religions so more special than the ideas of faeries or pink unicorns or orbiting chinaware other than a lot of people were brought up to believe that it is true? A lot of people may believe that all black people in Ireland are lazy and selfish and are only here to live off the welfare state. Should I respect this belief just because a lot of people believe it without evidence?

We use mythical creatures as examples because they are very accurate in describing religous belief. The religion and mythology of the ancient Greeks involved many mythical creatures, how are the Abrahamic religions any different or more true than these beliefs?

Simply saying that lots of people believe this so you much respect it is a cop out.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

It's arguable that people who reject the existence of other gods besides their own one(s), are behaving in a narrow-minded way, when the evidence for both sets of deities is the same (ie, old stories and tradition).

That's right. After all, I'm only atheist about one more god than a Christian is, or a Muslim - and they are also a heck of a lot more atheist than a Hindu...

...incorrectly so, as well, in the case of Christians, since the Bible mentions other gods...

cordially,
Scofflaw