Atheism is "cool"

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

Going back to your case about the item of clothing beside the man. According to your position, wihtout objective proof there can be no judgement. Does this mean that the man who owns the clothing is as likely to be innocent as any randomer on the street simply because we don't have a video record of exactly what happened?

Decisions are based on evidence. Lots of evidence which swings us in one direction is as close to proof as we'll get.

I have to congratulate you for this post, this is exactly the reasoning that led me to a stronger faith in Christ after reading Christian apologetics, and seeing that the case for God was much much stronger than other people had made it out to be. It was looking at the evidence from indication from various fields such as from history, archaeology, theology, implciations from science, and the philosophical arguments which have been made from theists. Each one of them seemed to strengthen my faith.

lostexpectation

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I think we're disagreeing over something very small.

I agree with you that atheists don't, and shouldn't, have to provide the proof for their views; the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the theists. I've never doubted that.

But, the people who I'm talking about were strongly theistic a year or two ago. I've had long debates with some of them, and they would never budge in their views. But now, when atheism is connotated with intellectualism, they've suddenly become atheistic. And when I've asked them why (as I'm curious, as I've had long debates with them previous - and they've said they'd never dare become atheists), they're responses were unbelievable (in the literal sense of the word). You'd imagine that somebody who was very theistic previously, then suddenly became atheistic, would have very good reasons for doing so - which they hadn't.

can i be an pretend to be intellectual now and quote occam's razor, the simplest answer are the best. no wonder they had to have long winded debates about the truth of god, cos there no easy way to explain it, especially if you have doubts.

what is there to explain, there is no god.

he accused his classmates of lieing that the credibility that being questioned.
i don't agree that there's coolness associated with non-belief.

your focus wasn't about their belief but about atheist fad-ism and people pretending to be atheists while being closet theists.

you accused people of being angsty teenagers who join the atheist fad, and are lieing about their faith in god, this forum get one of those sort of threads ever week its quite boring.

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote: »

can i be an pretend to be intellectual now and quote occam's razor, the simplest answer are the best. no wonder they had to have long winded debates about the truth of god, cos there no easy way to explain it, especially if you have doubts.

Occams razor doesn't apply to reasons for disbelief.

what is there to explain, there is no god.

I agree. But, I'd like to know how you're so sure.

he accused his classmates of lieing that the credibility that being questioned.

I proposed that they might perhaps be pretending.

i don't agree that there's coolness associated with non-belief.

You're opinion; many would disagree.

your focus wasn't about their belief but about atheist fad-ism and people pretending to be atheists while being closet theists.

You're looking into it too deeply. My focus was, quite simply, has atheism become cool. I don't see how I could make my hypotheses any simpler?

you accused people of being angsty teenagers who join the atheist fad, and are lieing about their faith in god, this forum get one of those sort of threads ever week its quite boring.

What are you raving about? Ok. Give me the exact passage where I accused "people of being angsty teenagers". How do you know I'm lying about their faith in God; please provide evidence for that accusation. Where are the other threads, since they're so common I presume there would be very many of them?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It was looking at the evidence from indication from various fields such as from history, archaeology, theology, implciations from science, and the philosophical arguments which have been made from theists. Each one of them seemed to strengthen my faith.

Yes but are you really being honest in what the evidence is suggesting.

Any discussions I've had with Christians, or religious/supernatural believers in general, it turns out to be a discussion where the conclusion is searching for evidence, and you will always find the evidence fits a conclusion if you go backwards.

It is the whole "I don't have another explanation for this therefore God did it" form of evidence gathering. Arguments from ignorance.

A classic example is the argument that the universe looks like it was designed by God, therefore the universe is evidence for the existence of God. Which is such a fundamentally flawed piece of deduction it is hard to take someone who would accept that as valid evidence for God in any serious light.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I have to congratulate you for this post, this is exactly the reasoning that led me to a stronger faith in Christ after reading Christian apologetics, and seeing that the case for God was much much stronger than other people had made it out to be. It was looking at the evidence from indication from various fields such as from history, archaeology, theology, implciations from science, and the philosophical arguments which have been made from theists. Each one of them seemed to strengthen my faith.

I'm glad we each have our reasons.

I found my answers in looking at the world around me and realising that every advancement that humankind has made in history has come from the minds and actions of humans. I realised that religion brought absolutely nothing to the cause of humanity and was usually a hindrance. Then I looked for God's influence anywhere on earth and found it lacking. Finally, I looked introspectively and realised that anything I'd ever felt about religion was either due to growing up in a staunch catholic area or a childish inclination to believe in a higher power.

To each his own!

t-ha

t-ha wrote: »

Normally that's fine, but in the case of atheism I would find it a little disturbing since I tend to put atheism and scientific/rational thinking in the same box together, and would like to think that people who become atheists would also embrace the methods of thinking that require evidence-based conclusions and logical thought.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wish people wouldn't, though. I'm an atheist, and have nothing more than a passing interest in the sciences.

Sorry, totally forgot about this thread!

That's cool, though it's not so much about liking scientific subjects, so much as the kind of thought processes you employ. Specifically, not giving yourself over to very strong feelings on a subject without having significant evidence.

t-ha

pH wrote: »

I take your point that some folks may be atheists through a herd-like mentality, but there is another side to this.

It's been said that "atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby", and much of what you say seems to be equivalent to complaining that:

"Many people aren't collecting stamps, and you know what? They haven't really thought about why they're not collecting stamps, and they're not collecting them for all the wrong reasons!"

Sorry about the delay replying, same excuse as ^^^.

Good point, but groups are generally made up of people with something in common, so 'people who don't collect stamps' is an unusual choice. Atheists are AFAIK currently largely made up of former theists who stopped believing for whatever reason and are in the minority, so they have that in common. In the future your analogy will hopefully be more accurate. Personally I'd love to be thought of as just a guy who thinks stamp collecting is boring and religions are ridiculous, and not be grouped together with absolutely anyone who doesn't believe in a god.

My main issue would be that if people become atheist because it's cool, but don't take on the lessons of rational based thought, they may just as easily switch back to theism as soon as that comes back in vogue.
I honestly think that if you could flick a switch and remove all religions right now, but without making anyone consider why they should question their theism or change their thought processes, that in a fairly short space of time you'ld be back with various Gods having popped up all over the place again, or good Dawa and bad Dawa in everything etc.

Phototoxin

I have to congratulate you for this post, this is exactly the reasoning that led me to a stronger faith in Christ after reading Christian apologetics, and seeing that the case for God was much much stronger than other people had made it out to be. It was looking at the evidence from indication from various fields such as from history, archaeology, theology, implciations from science, and the philosophical arguments which have been made from theists. Each one of them seemed to strengthen my faith.

I have to note that I find it funny how two people (ie you and me) can read similar things and be lead in two different directions.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm glad we each have our reasons.

I found my answers in looking at the world around me and realising that every advancement that humankind has made in history has come from the minds and actions of humans. I realised that religion brought absolutely nothing to the cause of humanity and was usually a hindrance.

Without God there is no 'humanity', and no cause of humanity. There are only individuals each with our own purposeless lives.

If 'advancements' can exist in such a worldview, religion surely bears some responsibility, as it is also a product of the minds and actions of humans.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Without God there is no 'humanity', and no cause of humanity.

Well this is patently false. Humanity exists as both a race and a popular sentiment. The fact that you need a magical over father to be comfortable with it doesn't make it less important to all those other people.

There are only individuals each with our own purposeless lives.

How on Earth would the existence of the Biblical God create purpose? Knowing that my brief life on this earth was at the whim of a galactic despot doesn't make existence any less purposeless. Why is there a God? Why does he get to be in charge and not me? What if I don't like the terms of his Not-Go-To-Hell pact? God is still subject to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" We're all in this together, you, me, God and the turtles...except one of us got a staggeringly disproportionate amount of power over the rest.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

of course leaving out nonsense like burdens of proof.

Ahaha. Wow.

Ok Jakkass. I hereby propose that you are in fact the reanimated corpse of Napoleon, living a half life split evenly between browsing the internet and prowling the night looking for children to feed your undead bloodlust.

Now...when you and I disagree about this over cocktails, do you think it is fair that you might be expected to provide evidence to disprove my claim, or is it more reasonable to consider providing proof to be my burden? Would you find a third-party to be unfair if they gave each of our positions equal consideration until we each supplied evidence?

In which case, why would you feel that you and your claims about ancient Jewish resurrection and divine intervention should not be subject to the same principle?

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well this is patently false. Humanity exists as both a race and a popular sentiment. The fact that you need a magical over father to be comfortable with it doesn't make it less important to all those other people.

As a species we exist but we do not have any sort of union with all other humans any more than animals do. The idea of such a union of humanity depends on the assumption that humans as a species have been created for a purpose of some kind.

How on Earth would the existence of the Biblical God create purpose? Knowing that my brief life on this earth was at the whim of a galactic despot doesn't make existence any less purposeless. Why is there a God? Why does he get to be in charge and not me?

'Why do you use such emotive language?' is another question worth asking. Atheists are so angry, aren't they.

There is no teleological 'cause of humanity' if there is no God. Only the causes of individuals and tribes.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

As a species we exist but we do not have any sort of union with all other humans any more than animals do. The idea of such a union of humanity depends on the assumption that humans as a species have been created for a purpose of some kind.

Um...yes we do have a union with all other humans. We're the same species. I don't see how the idea of union depends on the above assumption.

'Why do you use such emotive language?' is another question worth asking. Atheists are so angry, aren't they.

You're allowed ask questions when you answer Zillah's.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

As a species we exist but we do not have any sort of union with all other humans any more than animals do.

Not in some nonsensical supernatural sense, no. But human beings are very capable of feeling a great connection to the rest of their species, to have hopes for its future and to work towards bettering that future.

The idea of such a union of humanity depends on the assumption that humans as a species have been created for a purpose of some kind.

No it doesn't. In fact...I can see no connection whatsoever between these concepts of "union" and "purpose". How connected a person feels to the rest of humanity is entirely a personally, emotional thing. If you require sky-daddy for that then fine, that's you, but don't try and project that onto billions of other people.

'Why do you use such emotive language?'

Because I am filled with utter disdain for your appalling 'logic'.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

As a species we exist but we do not have any sort of union with all other humans any more than animals do. The idea of such a union of humanity depends on the assumption that humans as a species have been created for a purpose of some kind.

It is a bit nonsensical to claim we don't have any common union, be given a example of one (biology) and then dismiss it because it isn't the common union you think is important.

All humans on Earth are very closely related. We have all descended from a couple of thousand humans who lived in Africa about 100,000 years ago. The estimates of the bottleneck could be as low as 5,000.

So all humans share very similar instincts and emotional structures that have evolved over the millennia.

That may mean nothing to you because you prefer to believe that we were all created uniformly by a super powerful sky god for what ever purpose he at that moment. But really that is here nor there

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Not in some nonsensical supernatural sense, no. But human beings are very capable of feeling a great connection to the rest of their species, to have hopes for its future and to work towards bettering that future.

This is just a feeling however, and it is not how most humans have always lived.

No it doesn't. In fact...I can see no connection whatsoever between these concepts of "union" and "purpose". How connected a person feels to the rest of humanity is entirely a personally, emotional thing. If you require sky-daddy for that then fine, that's you, but don't try and project that onto billions of other people.

The billions of others who believe in God? Remember, atheism is a minority, upper-class faith on a worldwide scale.

Because I am filled with utter disdain for your appalling 'logic'.

Why? You surely don't believe yourself to hold the objective truth in your hands, and to be woefully suffering my heresy, do you?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a bit nonsensical to claim we don't have any common union, be given a example of one (biology) and then dismiss it because it isn't the common union you think is important.

To value that union as important enough to build an ideology upon is one of those secularised humanist values as inherited from Christianity. There doesn't seem to be any reason to claim that our species has a common cause based simply on biology. This is not the way other animal species live.

And I'm not a denier of evolution so I don't see why you even tried to bring that one up.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

This is just a feeling however, and it is not how most humans have always lived.

So? Yes, it is just a feeling. That's what I'm saying. People can feel hope, pride and dedication for humanity, and I don't give a flying fiddle how many people happen to feel it. Mathew VII feels it and you tried to dismiss it with some nonesense point about there being no such thing as humanity without God.

The billions of others who believe in God? Remember, atheism is a minority, upper-class faith on a worldwide scale.

So? This has nothing to do with my point. Unless you're simply making a shameless appeal to popularity.

Why? You surely don't believe yourself to hold the objective truth in your hands, and to be woefully suffering my heresy, do you?

I'd describe it as being pretty damn sure I'm right, rather than having the objective truth in my hands. And I'm more enduring your irrationality than 'suffering your heresy'.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

To value that union as important enough to build an ideology upon is one of those secularised humanist values as inherited from Christianity. There doesn't seem to be any reason to claim that our species has a common cause based simply on biology. This is not the way other animal species live.

As has already been pointed out you are flipping between union and purpose/cause almost at random as if those two concepts where the one and the same. Which some what speaks to your motivation here, but isn't really helpful when no one else is accepting that the only union humans can have is a common, God given, purpose.

Genghiz Cohen

The billions of others who believe in God? Remember, atheism is a minority, upper-class faith on a worldwide scale.

I remember a time in Germany, about the year 1940 where there was a political party voted in by the majority...
Might makes right and all that.
In B4 Goodwins law.

CerebralCortex

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I remember a time in Germany, about the year 1940 where there was a political party voted in by the majority...
Might makes right and all that.
In B4 Goodwins law.

More like 1930. <gets coat>

Genghiz Cohen

CerebralCortex wrote: »

More like 1930. <gets coat>

Flip You! :pac:
I knew I should have double checked that...

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I remember a time in Germany, about the year 1940 where there was a political party voted in by the majority...

At the risk of belaboring the point, the Nazis never won a majority in any election in Germany, and in the final "free" election in the Weimar Republic in November 1932, their share of the vote had declined substantially from previous elections.

In the runoff round of the election for President of Germany in April 1932, Hindenburg trounced Hitler by 53% to 37%. In the parliamentary election in July that year, the Nazi's topped the poll with 38% of the vote, but Hitler refused coalition, resulting in a second parliamentary election in November which saw the Nazi's share of the vote decline to 32%. But the non-extremist parties continued to bicker amongst themselves and inevitably, towards the end of January 1933, Hindenburg had little choice but to appoint Hitler Chancellor, though with profound misgivings.

Four weeks later, the Reichstag caught fire and documentation -- located suspiciously easily and rapidly after the fire -- pointed the finger at the Communists and in the lead up to yet more parliamentary elections one week later, Hitler successfully portrayed himself as the defender of the German State against the anti-democratic forces of Communism, whose political operations he had suspended following the fire. And the Nazi's duly gained 44% of the vote.

Following this, Hitler demanded the power to suspend the parliament for four years so that he could bring stability to the country. Such a suspension of parliament required the support of two-thirds of the parliament's MP's, and some serious politicking ensued. With the Communists gone and business concerned about the hyperinflation of some years before and interested in the stability he appeared to offer, the Catholic Center Party stepped up and traded the votes of its MP's for protection of its religious interests in a Nazi Germany. With that, the Enabling Act was passed, Hitler became dictator and the rest is history.

<gets coat>

Genghiz Cohen

robindch wrote: »

<gets coat>

Now that he's gone...

Valmont

Guys I think our days are numbered. This months issue of GQ has said God is coming back in a BIG way this season.

Dades

Yes, but which one dammit!

BurnsCarpenter

Valmont wrote: »

Guys I think our days are numbered. This months issue of GQ has said God is coming back in a BIG way this season.

I don't know - the talk in hipster circles is that Satan's due a comeback.

Galvasean

All the cool kids worship Cthulhu these days

Irlandese

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

In a few days of somewhat foolishness, and a dare from a friend who didn't believe me to be an atheist, I wrote a letter requesting excommunication. It was 9,000 words long, and was probably more like a thesis than a letter! I outlined every single problem that I had with the church, then every problem I had with religion, then why I didn't feel the need for religion. I commited acts in the letter that broke 3 of the cardinal laws, wish technically result in excommunication. I then posted it to my local priest, who never responded. This was over a year ago. I thought he would of at least had the courtesy to acknowledge it's delivery. To this day I wonder should I forward a copy to the local Bishop, but, I don't think there's much point.

Hi Jammy,
A number of years ago, in France, a very large group of people arranged to go, together, to a catholic church, to officially renounce what they saw as the moral and spiritual affront, to them, as sentient people, of having been "baptised" in name only, while still un-aware babies. They wished to formally state that the earlier ceremony was illogical and absurd and offensive to them, personally. They then felt more free and "honoured" in their own personal belief and spiritual systems.
Some twelve years ago, I did the same thing, but on my own. I did it as a "gift" to myself. I felt the need to expunge what I saw as a stain on my public reputation. It was not an aggressive act. Far from it. I did it for love of the integrity, purity and fairness of my own anima.
I do not encourage others to do the same. That is for all to decide for themselves. However, I do believe that staying a "notionale" member of any group is an action. I further believe that we are morally bound to leave any group or organisation with which we fundamentally disagree on any important point, in as far as our continuing membership may and is often used as proof of social and communal support for sometimes outlandish views, as with the Catholic Church'e opposition to contraception or to the use and promotion of condom use in Africa to counteract the virulent spread of HIV infection.
My moral compass would not allow me to allow others to continue to believe that I supported the views of such a religion, so I announced my "act of faith" to many people important to me.

Otaku Girl

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Is it just me, or has atheism become "cool" in the last year or two? I mean, I'm repeating my living cert now, so I'm a bit older than the others in my year, but many of them consider themselves atheists. And when asked why, they just give stupid reasons like "believing in God is stupid!", backed up with no reason why it's apparently so stupid. Have any of you experienced this? Has atheism become the new "cool" thing? Or is it meerly isolated to my school:pac:

It's a means to be perceived as intelligent without having to actually do anything intelligent.

philologos

Irlandese: Did you do that during a church service?