Athiests - Who cares

Baggy Trousers · 08-01-2015 02:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Whoa, easy up an that mathematics stuff, buddy, we're not all atheists here!

o1s1n · 08-01-2015 02:03PM

Saipanne wrote: »

I responded. Do you have any thoughts, hopes, dreams of your own?

I do. I dream of continuing to live out a great life on this earth with my friends and family before I kick the bucket and my time is up.

That's a fairly decent thought/hope/dream to have. I don't see the need to bring the supernatural into it.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:04PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I do. I dream of continuing to live out a great life on this earth with my friends and family before I kick the bucket and my time is up.

That's a fairly decent thought/hope/dream to have. I don't see the need to bring the supernatural into it.

Good for you. God bless you.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:04PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Gnostic atheists. Which is rare and many would agree an illogical position.

Never heard that one.

08-01-2015 02:05PM

kneemos wrote: »

Atheism is flawed logic as it rules out the possibility of the unexplained and as any scientist will tell you their whole life is devoted to the unexplained.

Ahhh no.

Said as an atheist with Science and Computer Science Degrees

RDM_83 again · 08-01-2015 02:06PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah but A&A is not a random sample of atheists. It's a sample of people who are atheists who want to spend time talking about atheism. That's a much more specific group of people.

I there is a reason I said atheists you know are atheists

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This may be true in some cases in regard to issues like abortion, equal marriage and other similar issues of social justice/rights. This is most likely because religion is the root cause of these rights being restricted and because we do not subscribe to religion we share a lack of religious based opposition. Still it is not the case that all atheists will agree that such rights should be granted to all.

Are they though? I can see how certain religious views would relate to positions of these issues but to assign religion as the root cause is at best uncertain. There have been numerous deeply anti-theist societies in the recent past that have placed severe restrictions of some of these things.
Also there is the trend to be quiet strongly left economically and quite socially liberal, neither of which are views that are "naturally atheist", my view is that the reason presumptions are made about atheists is because in a broad stroke sense if an Irish atheist tells you they are an atheist from their cultural background you can often make some quite accurate assumptions of their views.

Ghost Buster · 08-01-2015 02:07PM

constance tench wrote: »

OK, for you there is nothing to understand.

Theres lots to understand. Thats why we go to school, read books, watch documentarys, become scientists and such. Simply saying God Diddit is the antithesis of understanding and simply wishy washy mystical cobblers

Hermy · 08-01-2015 02:07PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

That is the concept of god, not god.

Can you explain this?

TheChizler · 08-01-2015 02:07PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Never heard that one.

Most haven't. Those who have generally have taken the time to look into these things.

Useful chart.

keithclancy · 08-01-2015 02:07PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god. I have no idea if some kind of god like entity exists, I just don't believe the humans that tell me they know a certain type exists and have special knowledge about what it wants when they have nothing to support their assertions but arrogance and some book that was written by someone else or group of people.

I'm talking purely about the definition of the word.

If you believe in one or many 'Gods' then you are not an Atheist
If you do not believe in a God then you are an Atheist

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:09PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Most haven't. Those who have generally have taken the time to look into these things.

Useful chart.

No thanks.

Kiwi in IE · 08-01-2015 02:09PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes.

Yes not believing in flying purple unicorns is a faith based position? What about not believing in Santa? So if I tell you there is a flying purple unicorn that lives in my shed who has the responsibility of proof? Is it my job to provide evidence that it does exist or yours to prove it dosn't? There is no proof that a god exists, theists are not able to provide evidence for the existence of one, therefore not believing in one does not require any 'faith'.

Michael OBrien · 08-01-2015 02:09PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Gnostic atheists. Which is rare and many would agree an illogical position.

Only if it refers to any type of god, but the poster has capitalised it as God, which is usually referring to the abrahamic gods, which most definitely don't exist. You can be gnostic towards obvious false claims and agnostic towards vague claims that have nothing to analyse the probabilities with. The god of the bible is simply a local tribal god blown out of all proportions by its followers, and if the bible is taken as read, looks like us, lives in the sky over a flat earth with a crystal dome with two conflicting origin stories that are flawed beyond belief (pun intended). The modernised version by 'enlightened' christians is so nebulous in its attributes that it is self refuting.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:09PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This kind of thing here is every bit as obnoxious as the type of atheist the OP is complaining about.

Jesus loves you, my son.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:10PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes not believing in flying purple unicorns is a faith based position? What about not believing in Santa? So if I tell you there is a flying purple unicorn that lives in my shed who has the responsibility of proof? Is it my job to provide evidence that it does exist or yours to prove it dosn't? There is no proof that a god exists, therefore not believing in one does not require any 'faith'.

All yes.

o1s1n · 08-01-2015 02:11PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This kind of thing here is every bit as obnoxious as the type of atheist the OP is complaining about.

Don't worry, I took it as being genuine and not obnoxious sarcasm. Us atheists always see the good in people like that

Baggy Trousers · 08-01-2015 02:11PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Jesus loves you, my son.

I think you have lost the argument Saipanne.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:11PM

o1s1n wrote: »

Don't worry, I took it as being genuine and not obnoxious sarcasm. Us atheists always see the good in people like that

I will pray for your soul.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:12PM

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I think you have lost the argument Saipanne.

You can't win against blind faith.

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:14PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you pray for mine too? I'd like it to go to Valhalla. Those guys know how to party. Thanks in advance.

I'll work on it. Any other celestial requests?

TheChizler · 08-01-2015 02:14PM

Saipanne wrote: »

No thanks.

Have I offered you something?

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Only if it refers to any type of god, but the poster has capitalised it as God, which is usually referring to the abrahamic gods, which most definitely don't exist. You can be gnostic towards obvious false claims and agnostic towards vague claims that have nothing to analyse the probabilities with. The god of the bible is simply a local tribal god blown out of all proportions by its followers, and if the bible is taken as read, looks like us, lives in the sky over a flat earth with a crystal dome with two conflicting origin stories that are flawed beyond belief (pun intended). The modernised version by 'enlightened' christians is so nebulous in its attributes that it is self refuting.

I'm talking a in a strictly logical sense, yes or no. You can never 100% disprove anything. However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea; a Russel's Teapot situation.

constance tench · 08-01-2015 02:14PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Theres lots to understand. Thats why we go to school, read books, watch documentarys, become scientists and such. Simply saying God Diddit is the antithesis of understanding and simply wishy washy mystical cobblers

OK, for you there are lots of discoveries to be made...I admire that.

o1s1n · 08-01-2015 02:15PM

Saipanne wrote: »

I will pray for your soul.

I already have two grand mothers praying for my soul across two major world religions so am covered, thanks

Feel free to light a candle or hold a vigil for me though.

Roger Hassenforder · 08-01-2015 02:16PM

Saipanne wrote: »

I will pray for your soul.

Which god are you praying to?
I have a supplication you might include

Saipanne · 08-01-2015 02:17PM

o1s1n wrote: »

I already have two grand mothers praying for my soul across two major world religions so am covered, thanks

Feel free to light a candle or hold a vigil for me though.

Spread betting. Good work. I myself follow all religions. Including the religion of atheism.

Michael OBrien · 08-01-2015 02:18PM

keithclancy wrote: »

I'm talking purely about the definition of the word.

If you believe in one or many 'Gods' then you are not an Atheist
If you do not believe in a God then you are an Atheist

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

I say again "Not believing in a god is not the same as believing there is no god". There are thousands of variations of view on a god concept, that a dictionary cannot address. Deists for example believe a god may have started the universe, but either went away, stays objective and does not interfere, or died or ceased to be at the moment of creation (possibly more versions of course). A pantheist believes the universe is god, a panentheist believes we are all in the mind of god (like a dream). There are endless versions and of course there could be a god like being that is something we cannot even fathom.
People use a semantical shell game at times with what 'god' is when they state what atheists 'believe'. I am just wary of that when I post replies.

Michael OBrien · 08-01-2015 02:23PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Have I offered you something?

I'm talking a in a strictly logical sense, yes or no. You can never 100% disprove anything. However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea; a Russel's Teapot situation.

The gnostic view is not 100% yes or no certainty, but practical plausibilities.
I cannot say anything for 100%, even that I exist, so its a dangerous rabbit hole to go down and in my view a strawman on the topic that many people don't even realise.
The Russel Teapot is designed for showing where the burden of proof lies btw more than an actual claim of it possibly existing.
"However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea". That is all I am saying. In some cases the gods' claims result in zero probability of existing, but zero probabilities does not equal zero possibilities.

TheChizler · 08-01-2015 02:26PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The gnostic view is not 100% yes or no certainty, but practical plausibilities.
I cannot say anything for 100%, even that I exist, so its a dangerous rabbit hole to go down and in my view a strawman on the topic that many people don't even realise.
The Russel Teapot is designed for showing where the burden of proof lies btw more than an actual claim of it possibly existing.
"However if you bring probabilities into it then yes you can say it's so unlikely as to not be worth entertaining as an idea". That is all I am saying. In some cases the gods' claims result in zero probability of existing, but zero probabilities does not equal zero possibilities.

I'm going to admit I'm lost here but I don't think we're disagreeing!

o1s1n · 08-01-2015 02:26PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Spread betting. Good work. I myself follow all religions. Including the religion of atheism.

So when you said 'god bless you' which god were you talking about if you believe in them all?

I hope not one of the crappier ones!

Sofiztikated · 08-01-2015 02:27PM

I'll have a good old argument with people IRL about Religion™, but in the end, it always ends up being an argument about the definition of atheism, rather than the topic at hand.

I'd call myself an agnostic atheist, christened and confirmed Presbyterian, and my partner is Catholic, christened and confirmed. I've tried, on a number of occasions, to point out to her that her belief structure does not fit with the term "Catholic" but it usually ends up in tears, and I'm not that much of a cúnt to keep pursuing it.

For the most part, a lot of people would be in the agnostic theist category. I've found that it's the Gnostic ones, both theist and atheist, that tend to be the arseholes.

Athiests - Who cares

Comments