An atheist's call to arms

So truth only exists when you feel justified? Wow. That's an incredible gift you have!



First of all, it is about 'absolute certainty' when you make the statement that 'there is no God'. It's not saying there probably is not God, but rather making the claim that there is no God and the believer is wrong. And based on what? About your experiences and the knowledge you gained in this life? Are you the gold standard in what is true?

Isn't the pride smacking you right in the face?

Is there a Godzilla?
 
Im curious. Do you apply this premise to all questions in life? Any claim anyone makes, do you feel its justified to accept it until it is disproven? How then do you go about building a rational world view? Or is it just the question of gods that you apply this to? If so, why the double standard? Are you simply constructing a double standard to accommodate beliefs you simply want to believe?

And why does this line of reasoning not apply to other religions? Have you proven that Thor does not exist? If not, how can you be justified in your belief that he does not exist?

I believe Thor does not exist because I have faith he does not exist.
You believe God does not exist because you have faith he does not exist.

It is a question of faith.
 
I'm at 16:00 right now.... I think he's off when he says that Atheists should exercise their "political muscle". It's not possible. He compares the pandering to the Jews, but seems to not realize that Jews and Christians are not so much in conflict. Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.

Dawkins keeps talking about a growing number of Atheists and Agnostics. Unless non-bigots and/or Atheists/Agnostics are a majority, there is no point in trying to bring up Atheism or Agnosticism when trying to win support (as would be the case in running for political office).


Edit: Oh... Dawkins was getting to that :o ;)

Atheists no different then Christianity, jewdism etc.... The difference is what you believe in and how you practice the belief.

I am atheist I do not believe in mysticism and I disagree with all organized religion but I do not feel any different no more then a jew compared to a budist, or a Muslim compared to a Christian.

I believe to each their own... you want to believe in the "ARK" that is your choice, have fun with that.

I also believe that getting rid of all religion in the world would solve have the worlds problems and bad attitudes.

So if a lets say the Pope says draw your guns and fight a war against someone... its ok...

But if an athiest says all athiest draw your guns and fight a war against someone... its not ok???

That sounds pretty hypocritical don't you think?

For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.

How would this be different then any other religion? Muslims and Islam are bigots to Christians, and visa versa.... Mormans are critical of every religion besides their own, and that goes for Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and every other religion in the world.

Live, learn and get luvs
 
I believe Thor does not exist because I have faith he does not exist.
You believe God does not exist because you have faith he does not exist.

It is a question of faith.

Do you use "faith" for establishing other world views? For example, do you simply walk across the street with "faith" there are no cars coming? Or do you look both ways first?
 
Ok, here is what we have established:

You have made an assertion. You have no evidence to back up that assertion. Normally, it would be pretty obvious that since you have no evidence that your assertion is true, there is no justification in believing it to be true. However, you have defined your assertion into a position that its SO FUCKING IMPORTANT, that not believing it is simply barbaric. You have also defined it in such a way that it can neither be proven or disproven, further building up this little cycle.
 
The point is, if this line of reasoning were made about ANYTHING other than a god, you would be laughed out of here. Everyone would point you out as an idiot. Yet since the subject matter is a god belief, which is at the very foundation of your world view, and it so important, you feel it is reasonable to make such an unreasonable argument, and people are OK with it.
 
Do you use "faith" for establishing other world views? For example, do you simply walk across the street with "faith" there are no cars coming? Or do you look both ways first?

I look both ways. And at the end of the day I thank God for keeping me safe for another day.
 
Okay just like a pick a specific real topic to talk about. I mean there's little point in arguing about Godzilla or if God exists really. You can always talk about dinosaurs though. I mean couple them could own a Godzilla I bet.
 
The point is, if this line of reasoning were made about ANYTHING other than a god, you would be laughed out of here. Everyone would point you out as an idiot. Yet since the subject matter is a god belief, which is at the very foundation of your world view, and it so important, you feel it is reasonable to make such an unreasonable argument, and people are OK with it.

Well, the reason people are OK with it is because the topic of God is unlike any other topic in human thought.

Ok, here is what we have established:

You have made an assertion. You have no evidence to back up that assertion. Normally, it would be pretty obvious that since you have no evidence that your assertion is true, there is no justification in believing it to be true. However, you have defined your assertion into a position that its SO FUCKING IMPORTANT, that not believing it is simply barbaric. You have also defined it in such a way that it can neither be proven or disprove, further building up this little cycle.

The reason I defined it in such a way is because God can not be disproven, but you seem to keep ignoring that fact when you so proudly exclaim that you know there is no God.
 
Well, the reason people are OK with it is because the topic of God is unlike any other topic in human thought.



The reason I defined it in such a way is because God can not be disproven, but you seem to keep ignoring that fact when you so proudly exclaim that you know there is no God.

You cant disprove Godzilla.
 
Ugh can't like you guys argue about something concrete. I mean this is like trying argue wether humans have souls.
 
How comes these god arguments follow the same pattern. It's like a person says there's a god. Then MRS picks a magical creature. You argue back and forth wether either exists. Then we get some stupid thread about it later.
 
Back
Top