Atheist Club

Join the club, its free, and it makes sense!

What exactly about atheism makes sense?

The whole Non-religious thing.

I have no problem with atheists, and am not a religious person.  I'm an agnostic.  But in my opinion, atheists are as wrong-headed about religion as religious people are.  There's no more reason to NOT believe in a creator than there is TO believe in a creator.  It's one of those things that by its very nature cannot be known.

There's no more reason to NOT believe in a creator than there is TO believe in a creator.

There is no reason to believe in a creator, therefor I don't. If there is no reason to believe something, that is reason enough not to believe it.

I have no problem with atheists, and am not a religious person.  I'm an agnostic.  But in my opinion, atheists are as wrong-headed about religion as religious people are.  There's no more reason to NOT believe in a creator than there is TO believe in a creator.  It's one of those things that by its very nature cannot be known.

You've gotta be kidding me. There's no reason to not believe in a creator? Do you understand how ridiculous the idea of a creator is? Why SHOULD we believe in a creator if there is absolutely positively no evidence towards it. I mean, obviously, there's no reason I should NOT believe in Santa Claus either, but there's no evidence that the man exists, so why would I believe in him?

Of course, you may be talking about deism (as in God created the world, but hasn't interacted with it since then), in which case, I'd ask you why there should be a creator, and why the universe necessitates intelligent design.

~D-Draw

I believe that the universe was created by an omnipotent bowl of chocolate pudding. I mean, there is no reason NOT to believe it.

Quote from: Round Earth Conspiracist on Today at 12:54:26 PM
I have no problem with atheists, and am not a religious person.  I'm an agnostic.  But in my opinion, atheists are as wrong-headed about religion as religious people are.  There's no more reason to NOT believe in a creator than there is TO believe in a creator.  It's one of those things that by its very nature cannot be known.


You've gotta be kidding me. There's no reason to not believe in a creator? Do you understand how ridiculous the idea of a creator is? Why SHOULD we believe in a creator if there is absolutely positively no evidence towards it. I mean, obviously, there's no reason I should NOT believe in Santa Claus either, but there's no evidence that the man exists, so why would I believe in him?

Of course, you may be talking about deism (as in God created the world, but hasn't interacted with it since then), in which case, I'd ask you why there should be a creator, and why the universe necessitates intelligent design.

~D-Draw

I don't think it does.  I don't pretend to know the nature of the universe.  In fact, I think that our lack of understanding of the universe and of ourselves at least allows the possibility of a creator.

And I know you're probably one of the "devil's advocates", Diego, but there's at least as much evidence of the existence of God as there is a flat earth.

The Santa Claus argument is retarded, by the way.  I'm sure you've used it very successfully in the past.  But there's a big difference in that we KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist.  Knowing that he doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe in him.

The overall nature of the universe, however, is inherently unknowable.

~RE Conspiracist

I don't think it does.  I don't pretend to know the nature of the universe.  In fact, I think that our lack of understanding of the universe and of ourselves at least allows the possibility of a creator.

There is a big difference between "possible" and "likely".

And I know you're probably one of the "devil's advocates", Diego, but there's at least as much evidence of the existence of God as there is a flat earth.

Do you honestly think that is going to help your argument?

The Santa Claus argument is retarded, by the way.  I'm sure you've used it very successfully in the past.  But there's a big difference in that we KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist.  Knowing that he doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe in him.

Ok then, what about Zeus, Poseidon, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Pudding God, dragons, unicorns, and the Loch Ness Monster?

The overall nature of the universe, however, is inherently unknowable.

Really? Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

I don't think it does.  I don't pretend to know the nature of the universe.  In fact, I think that our lack of understanding of the universe and of ourselves at least allows the possibility of a creator.

I don't pretend to know the nature of the universe either. But what proof do we have at all to believe that a creator would exist? And of course, I allow the possibility. I'm not ignorant, just atheistic. Honestly, though, I leave doubt in my mind that there's a Santa Claus, too, but the fact is that that doubt is incredibly small.

And I know you're probably one of the "devil's advocates", Diego, but there's at least as much evidence of the existence of God as there is a flat earth.

The former is correct, the latter not so much.

The Santa Claus argument is retarded, by the way.  I'm sure you've used it very successfully in the past.  But there's a big difference in that we KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist.  Knowing that he doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe in him.
The overall nature of the universe, however, is inherently unknowable.

Wait, wait, wait. Why do we KNOW that Santa Claus does not exist? Obviously, we know he doesn't bring gifts for Christmas, but do we KNOW that he does not exist as a physical entity? Not necessarily. But why don't you believe in him? Because there's no reason that we SHOULD believe in him, seeing as there's no proof of his existence. It's the same with God.

And I'm still confused as to whether you are concerning deism or theism. Deism makes slightly more sense, and there's no point in arguing for or against it. Theism is just stupid.

~D-Draw

Quote from: Round Earth Conspiracist on April 16, 2007, 01:14:08 PM

I don't think it does.  I don't pretend to know the nature of the universe.  In fact, I think that our lack of understanding of the universe and of ourselves at least allows the possibility of a creator.

There is a big difference between "possible" and "likely".

Of course.  But atheists don't say it's "unlikely" a God exists, they say it's "impossible" a God exists.

Quote

And I know you're probably one of the "devil's advocates", Diego, but there's at least as much evidence of the existence of God as there is a flat earth.

Do you honestly think that is going to help your argument?

No, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Quote

The Santa Claus argument is retarded, by the way.  I'm sure you've used it very successfully in the past.  But there's a big difference in that we KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist.  Knowing that he doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe in him.

Ok then, what about Zeus, Poseidon, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Pudding God, dragons, unicorns, and the Loch Ness Monster?

Sure, why not?  Actually, I want you to note that I never said anything in favor of a Christian God.  I merely said a creator.  There's a big difference in believing in the possibility of a non-defined creator and believing in some of that stuff.

Quote

The overall nature of the universe, however, is inherently unknowable.

Really? Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

Well, let's assume the Big Bang is true (and we might as well, because I believe it too).  What was all that infinite mass doing there in the first place?  Why did it explode, and what was the reason for the precise time it exploded?  These are things we don't know, MasterChief.  And how could we?

And then there's the human mind.  We still haven't figured out how that thing works.  Why is it, for example, that I can hear in my head a constant monologue, said head is encased in nothing but bone, blood and skin, and yet nobody else can hear it?  Think about it.  Has this sort of thing ever been duplicated in a laboratory?  We don't understand the nature of the mind, and I don't think we ever will.

Atheists are worse than zealots.

Of course.  But atheists don't say it's "unlikely" a God exists, they say it's "impossible" a God exists.

How about you learn a little bit about atheism before you argue against it, aye? Never have I said that it's impossible that God exists, just that it's incredibly unlikely.

Sure, why not?  Actually, I want you to note that I never said anything in favor of a Christian God.  I merely said a creator.  There's a big difference in believing in the possibility of a non-defined creator and believing in some of that stuff.

It doesn't matter. Why would you assume that a creator exists at all?

~D-Draw

Quote

The Santa Claus argument is retarded, by the way.  I'm sure you've used it very successfully in the past.  But there's a big difference in that we KNOW that Santa Claus doesn't exist.  Knowing that he doesn't exist, there's no reason to believe in him.
The overall nature of the universe, however, is inherently unknowable.

Wait, wait, wait. Why do we KNOW that Santa Claus does not exist? Obviously, we know he doesn't bring gifts for Christmas, but do we KNOW that he does not exist as a physical entity? Not necessarily. But why don't you believe in him? Because there's no reason that we SHOULD believe in him, seeing as there's no proof of his existence. It's the same with God.

The difference is that we KNOW Santa Claus to be something invented by human beings.  Nobody ever disputes the non-existence of Santa Claus.  It's a fairy tale.  You can't say the same thing about God.

And I'm still confused as to whether you are concerning deism or theism. Deism makes slightly more sense, and there's no point in arguing for or against it. Theism is just stupid.

To be fair, as stated, I am an agnostic.  But I agree that deism makes more sense, it's just that I would never say with any certainty that there is a God.  I just feel that there's no way we could ever know one way or another.  Maybe I'm wrong about the definition of "atheist", but then I'm having trouble seeing a distinction with what you define it as and what I call "agnosticism", which is where my belief lies.  I do believe that God is unlikely, I just don't rule him out as a possibility.  I've always thought that atheists just reject God's existence out of hand.  I know there are some that do, and those are the ones who are as bad as zealots.  It all seems rather dogmatic one way or the other to me.

Well, let's assume the Big Bang is true (and we might as well, because I believe it too).  What was all that infinite mass doing there in the first place?  Why did it explode, and what was the reason for the precise time it exploded?  These are things we don't know, MasterChief.  And how could we?

Well, I don't think the fact that you cant imagine how we can discover these things is evidence enough that we will never know.

And then there's the human mind.  We still haven't figured out how that thing works.  Why is it, for example, that I can hear in my head a constant monologue, said head is encased in nothing but bone, blood and skin, and yet nobody else can hear it?  Think about it.  Has this sort of thing ever been duplicated in a laboratory?  We don't understand the nature of the mind, and I don't think we ever will.

Actually, there are several groups of scientists decoding the brain as we speak. Scientists have already created mind-controlled prosthetic limbs, and are currently working on making it so the limbs will send signals back to the brain so that eventually people who use these prosthetic limbs will not know the difference between these and real limbs.

It is only a matter of time before we know everything there is to know about the human mind.

The difference is that we KNOW Santa Claus to be something invented by human beings.  Nobody ever disputes the non-existence of Santa Claus.  It's a fairy tale.  You can't say the same thing about God.

You do realize that Santa Clause was really based off a real person, don't you?

And yes, I can and do say the same thing about god.

The difference is that we KNOW Santa Claus to be something invented by human beings.  Nobody ever disputes the non-existence of Santa Claus.  It's a fairy tale.  You can't say the same thing about God.

We know that his image was made up, but how do we know that he doesn't really exist as a physical entity? And I could say similarly that we know that gods were made up by people--many mythological gods of antiquity were disproven by science, and so we know that people made up gods. Perhaps, I can't say the same thing about GOD--as in the Christian god--but I CAN say it about gods.

To be fair, as stated, I am an agnostic.  But I agree that deism makes more sense, it's just that I would never say with any certainty that there is a God.  I just feel that there's no way we could ever know one way or another.  Maybe I'm wrong about the definition of "atheist", but then I'm having trouble seeing a distinction with what you define it as and what I call "agnosticism", which is where my belief lies.  I do believe that God is unlikely, I just don't rule him out as a possibility.  I've always thought that atheists just reject God's existence out of hand.  I know there are some that do, and those are the ones who are as bad as zealots.  It all seems rather dogmatic one way or the other to me.

I reject God as a belief. I do not believe he exists, thus I am an atheist. But to acheive rationality of any sort, you have to allow room for the other theory in your mind--if you don't, you're just ignorant. So, I suppose I'm partially agnostic--but I'm definitely almost 100% positive that God does not exist.

~D-Draw

Join the club, its free, and it makes sense!

But I wanna pay

I'm 100% not care if God exists or not. Let people believe what they want. It's organised religion that is the real danger not the faith and beliefs of everyday people.

Quote from: Round Earth Conspiracist on April 16, 2007, 01:59:08 PM

The difference is that we KNOW Santa Claus to be something invented by human beings.  Nobody ever disputes the non-existence of Santa Claus.  It's a fairy tale.  You can't say the same thing about God.

You do realize that Santa Clause was really based off a real person, don't you?

And yes, I can and do say the same thing about god.

Oh come on.  Saint Nicholas the historical personage and Santa Claus the magical being who delivers presents to every Christian child in the world in a single night are two ENTIRELY different entities.

The idea of a creator is a hypothetical concept.  In my opinion (feel free to disagree), that's very different from the specific image of Santa Claus that we have, or even the specific image of God that we have from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  I just think (once again, feel free to disagree) that we can't KNOW whether there's a God or not.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read "A Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant?  There's a passage in that where he rationally disproves the existence of God... and one where he rationally proves the existence of God alongside it.  It's very interesting.

Wait a minute, Santa is a real, I met him

He was a fake.  Sorry.

Oh he was a racist anyway, he wouldnt let orangeman sit on his knee

We might not be able to conclusively prove that there is no entity which might reasonably be labeled a god, but  we can disprove any claimed evidence for his existence. For instance, miracles. Many people claim to have observed miracles, but this can be seen to be simply the tendency of people who desire the extraordinary to see it at work when there are only ordinary forces at work. The same type of phenomena has often been observed in claims of psychic power. A self-proclaimed psychic will make predictions and make claims about reality that often fool people who are inclined to believe in psychics that they do, in fact, have psychic powers. Famed skeptic Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine) once did just that - for a PBS science series, he pretended to be a psychic, and performed cold readings on several guests, who thought they were simply getting the chance to be interviewed by a psychic for a television show on psychics. He used a variety of props - star charts, tarot cards, palm readings - or none at all, and convinced every single guest that he had psychic powers. The miraculous is no different - it takes little to convince someone predisposed to see miracles that what they saw was miraculous, and a great deal more to convince a skeptic. There have been no known cases of skeptics convinced that they saw miracles, and yet thousands of claimed miracles observed by the faithful. Occam's razor says that miracles simply don't exist. The same thing goes for the power of prayer. Prayer is often claimed to aid in healing, but medical studies have been done, and no evidence for this claim has ever been found.

In other words, there is no evidence at all for the existence of a god - all of the arguments for his existence based on pure reason can be seen to be false, and all of the arguments based on supposed evidence are likewise observed to be false. This puts god in a category with the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, and the celestial teapot in orbit of saturn. You don't require any evidence to dismiss the existence of these objects, so why do you require any to dismiss the existence of god?

In other words, there is no evidence at all for the existence of a god - all of the arguments for his existence based on pure reason can be seen to be false, and all of the arguments based on supposed evidence are likewise observed to be false. This puts god in a category with the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, and the celestial teapot in orbit of saturn. You don't require any evidence to dismiss the existence of these objects, so why do you require any to dismiss the existence of god?

Actually I believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

Seriously, I still think it falls under the category of "opinion" (that is, the idea that you can't rationally prove the existence of God, therefore there's no reason to believe in him).  I just see no reason to assume that there isn't some kind of intelligent higher power that created everything.  It's like, I believe in the possibility of aliens, and there's no real reason for that, either.  I neither believe that aliens definitely exist or that they definitely don't exist.  But I have an open mind, and I allow for the possibility.

That was a very thoughtful post.  But I am the type of person who believes that anything is possible.  Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Who's to say it's not out there?  Who knows?  I'll certainly agree that you can't say that it doesn't exist with any more certainty than you can't say that God doesn't exist.  So, unlikely, yes, but impossible?

Well, a lot of what we used to think of as impossible is now an everyday occurrence for many people.  You can be skeptical and that's fine, but keep in mind, scientifically, you can't prove something.  You can only disprove something.  I have yet to see God disproven.

scientifically, you can't prove something.  You can only disprove something.

Actually, you have that backwards, which is why the invisible, pink unicorn theory works. If God is omnipresent AND invisible, then I can't say "Look! See! He's not here!" and call it quits. However, he COULD be proved to be there, if somebody had some proof and went, "Look! See! He's over here!" I've yet to see the latter, and have seen many example of the former, so it's looking more and more like God does not exist, but technically, it's impossible for us to disprove something's existence--though it may be possible pragmatically to disprove something, there's no way that we can disprove, for example, that Sol does not carry the sun around in circles in attempt to get away from Skoll; but they'd have to be invisible and they haven't been proved to be there, so it's assumed that they are not.

The idea with the invisible pink unicorns (I only keep bringing it up because it's a great example) is that since there is no evidence pointing towards something, we should rule it out until we DO have proof that points towards its existence, otherwise we would have an infinite amount of things that we would have to believe in--including invisible, pink unicorns.

~D-Draw

Actually Roundy is right about you not being able to scientifically prove anything.

Actually Roundy is right about you not being able to scientifically prove anything.

Waschyoo talkin' about? No, he's not. If I tell you that I have a cat, and then show you my cat and the papers which show that he is in my possession, I have just proven to you that I have a cat. On the other hand, if you say that I don't have a cat, you cannot logically disprove it. Pragmatically, you could say that you looked all around my house and did not see a cat nor ownership papers, but I could say that I hid them somewhere not in my house, and you wouldn't be able to disprove it.

~D-Draw

Nothing can be 100% proven. Thats accepted by everyone, why not you?