Atheism = arrogance

If there exists a loving god then why is our planet crawling with spiders?

Spiders are the true messengers of God. They are holy creatures, with a select few of them having a venom that can give supernatural abilities to those who are able to wield great power with great responsibility.

You're not bothering to note that the percentage of religious people in prison tends to somewhat show the percentage in the population...

Nope.  Demonstrably wrong.  In the US in 1997 the percentage of atheists in the population was estimated to be 8% to 15%.  So on a simple pro rata basis, atheists in prison are underrepresented by at least 40 times than would be expected from random distribution based on the population.

Or, if you seriously believe that only 0.209% of the population are atheists, then you're willfully self-deluded (as most religionists choose to be I might add).  Here in Australia at least,, the numbers of atheists account for more than 20% of the population.

What I am saying is there are a lot more atheists and agnostics in jail, because they are still counted as Catholics and Protestants. And furthermore, yes, I would be willing to bet that anyone who has taken the time to think about how they should be categorised probably is less inclined to be in jail. In other words, the Jews who want to be Jews are not likely to be there. The atheists who want to be atheists are probably pretty moral folk. The Catholics who want to be Catholic are pretty moral folk. The people in  jail tend to reflect the people whose religion is theirs only by heritage, and there  are very few people who get atheism from their parents. How many seriously devout Catholics in Australia are mass murderers? Not many. How many massive bank robbers are regular attendees of Baptist churches? Not many. But I'll bet that both, when asked, gave a label. They probably didn't say they were atheists, even if they actually are atheist/agnostic in point of fact.

Statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, and they hide essential parts.

What I am saying is there are a lot more atheists and agnostics in jail, because they are still counted as Catholics and Protestants. And furthermore, yes, I would be willing to bet that anyone who has taken the time to think about how they should be categorised probably is less inclined to be in jail. In other words, the Jews who want to be Jews are not likely to be there. The atheists who want to be atheists are probably pretty moral folk. The Catholics who want to be Catholic are pretty moral folk. The people in  jail tend to reflect the people whose religion is theirs only by heritage, and there  are very few people who get atheism from their parents. How many seriously devout Catholics in Australia are mass murderers? Not many. How many massive bank robbers are regular attendees of Baptist churches? Not many. But I'll bet that both, when asked, gave a label. They probably didn't say they were atheists, even if they actually are atheist/agnostic in point of fact.

Statistics are like bikinis. They show a lot, and they hide essential parts.

Why would atheists get labelled as catholics? Or protestants? There is a bit of a difference.

If you are born Catholic, and develop atheist beliefs later in life, but do not have your documents officially changed, you remain registered as a Catholic. This is quite common. If that person later goes to jail, they are labelled a Catholic, just because they have been documented as such, and have not changed the label. My brother was classified as religious for years after joining the military before he had it changed to atheist, simply because he didn't give a shit for that many years.

If you are born Catholic, and develop atheist beliefs later in life, but do not have your documents officially changed, you remain registered as a Catholic. This is quite common. If that person later goes to jail, they are labelled a Catholic, just because they have been documented as such, and have not changed the label. My brother was classified as religious for years after joining the military before he had it changed to atheist, simply because he didn't give a shit for that many years.

How many false positives are there?

If you are born Catholic, and develop atheist beliefs later in life, but do not have your documents officially changed, you remain registered as a Catholic. This is quite common. If that person later goes to jail, they are labelled a Catholic, just because they have been documented as such, and have not changed the label. My brother was classified as religious for years after joining the military before he had it changed to atheist, simply because he didn't give a shit for that many years.

...What documents?

Census forms, military information, and any other place where such information is maintained, like hospital records, and the like.

If you are born Catholic, and develop atheist beliefs later in life, but do not have your documents officially changed, you remain registered as a Catholic. This is quite common. If that person later goes to jail, they are labelled a Catholic, just because they have been documented as such, and have not changed the label. My brother was classified as religious for years after joining the military before he had it changed to atheist, simply because he didn't give a shit for that many years.

No one is "born catholic". Their parents might be, but they aren't.

And is it stated on your birth certificate what religion you are? Maybe in america.
The discrepancy will still be outweighed by those who are catholic, and are also in prison?
And even then, will you accept that atheists are underrepresented in the penitentiary system?

To be honest, I don't think religious affiliation is listed on birth documents. In hospitals, it is asked of people for Chaplain's Care if needed. When I say "born Catholic", I should have been more precise. I mean baptised at birth or slightly after by one's guardians. The only religion you're born into is the ethno-religious group of Jews and Judaism. Of course, their are parallel groups, but you don't meet them much in the West. Yazidis, Mandaeans, and Druze have religions that are co-terminous with an ethnic group, like the Jews.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 08, 2015, 03:07:32 AM

If you are born Catholic, and develop atheist beliefs later in life, but do not have your documents officially changed, you remain registered as a Catholic. This is quite common. If that person later goes to jail, they are labelled a Catholic, just because they have been documented as such, and have not changed the label. My brother was classified as religious for years after joining the military before he had it changed to atheist, simply because he didn't give a shit for that many years.

No one is "born catholic". Their parents might be, but they aren't.

And is it stated on your birth certificate what religion you are? Maybe in america.
The discrepancy will still be outweighed by those who are catholic, and are also in prison?
And even then, will you accept that atheists are underrepresented in the penitentiary system?

Oh please. Like the huge amount of theists in prison doesn't have anything to with the fact they get to go to a nice house of worship rather than their cell or a canteen where fights happen all the time or become more likely to get parole. no obviously it's all to do witht he evil of religon.

Atheism is not arrogant since it is the default position of a human being. Even a person that was previously religious that rejects a religious claim is not arrogant. Since most theistic claims have no evidence to support them, it is perfectly justified to dismiss them without evidence.

Atheism is arrogant for one simple reason. It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing. That is an extremely arrogant, and also stupid, approach to take. Agnosticism would perhaps be a halfway defensible position, although even that is a bit of a cowardly position and a copout. Assuming there is no Deity is as arrogant and moreso than assuming there is.

It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing.

It's not an assumption, it's a rejection of the argument that everything must have been created by a supernatural entity. Is it unwise to believe that this world arose naturally, just like every other thing we know of in this universe?

Assuming there is no Deity is as arrogant and moreso than assuming there is.

Why? Is it irrational to not believe in magic and the supernatural?

Atheism is arrogant for one simple reason. It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing. That is an extremely arrogant, and also stupid, approach to take. Agnosticism would perhaps be a halfway defensible position, although even that is a bit of a cowardly position and a copout. Assuming there is no Deity is as arrogant and moreso than assuming there is.

Misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism is just the rejection of god-claims. You can be atheist and not know what caused the beginning of the universe.

I am of the camp that thinks that of the hypotheses presented, the God hypothesis is the most absurd. Another hypothesis, namely quantum fluctuation, causes less problems logically and is more rationally sound.

It is not I that is being arrogant by dismissing the most complex explanation in favor of greatly less convoluted ones. To assert that your unfalsafiable hypothesis with nothing to back itself up is correct with 100% certainty is arrogant.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM

It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing.

It's not an assumption, it's a rejection of the argument that everything must have been created by a supernatural entity. Is it unwise to believe that this world arose naturally, just like every other thing we know of in this universe?

It is unwise. How does something arise from nothing? Everything in this Universe has to arise from something, so far as we have been able to determine.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM

Assuming there is no Deity is as arrogant and moreso than assuming there is.

Why? Is it irrational to not believe in magic and the supernatural?

It is irrational to assume that something could pop up from nothing.

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM

Atheism is arrogant for one simple reason. It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing. That is an extremely arrogant, and also stupid, approach to take. Agnosticism would perhaps be a halfway defensible position, although even that is a bit of a cowardly position and a copout. Assuming there is no Deity is as arrogant and moreso than assuming there is.

Misrepresentation of atheism. Atheism is just the rejection of god-claims. You can be atheist and not know what caused the beginning of the universe.

I am of the camp that thinks that of the hypotheses presented, the God hypothesis is the most absurd. Another hypothesis, namely quantum fluctuation, causes less problems logically and is more rationally sound.

Explanation, please. Again, something arising from nothing makes very little sense.

It is not I that is being arrogant by dismissing the most complex explanation in favor of greatly less convoluted ones. To assert that your unfalsafiable hypothesis with nothing to back itself up is correct with 100% certainty is arrogant.

And yet there is absolutely NOTHING to back up the idea that something came from nothing, either. Let us be clear. Perhaps I am unclear about what quantum fluctuation is. If that is the case, do enlighten me. And no, I am not trying to be a wise-ass here. I am genuinely curious as to your answer. I am not a scientist. My degrees are in History and Philosophy.

It is unwise. How does something arise from nothing?

Please tell us, from where have you constructed this dichotomy between 'sentient, phenomenally powerful God,' and 'nothing'?
Seems to me there's an awful lot of space in between the two...

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 21, 2015, 05:26:21 AM

It is unwise. How does something arise from nothing?

Please tell us, from where have you constructed this dichotomy between 'sentient, phenomenally powerful God,' and 'nothing'?
Seems to me there's an awful lot of space in between the two...

Interesting point. So, if you think it is a dichotomy, a false one, I assume you mean, then what do you propose?

Interesting point. So, if you think it is a dichotomy, a false one, I assume you mean, then what do you propose?

Why do I need to propose something? I'm perfectly content with saying I don't know. It's just plain to see that, for example, sentience is not a required trait for the cause of the universe.

How is that plain to see?

We currently do not know what processes started the universe. It is an argument from ignorance to say that since we do not know the God hypothesis is correct.

Quantum fluctuation corresponds with physics as we know it. The God hypothesis does not.

How is that plain to see?

Would you care to explain why sentience is necessary, then?
As far as I can tell, literally the only trait we can deduce about the cause of the universe is "can produce things from nothing." I don't see how that requires sentience, or indeed anything beyond what's stated there. A dumb force could fill in just as well.

Quote from: kman on May 20, 2015, 06:41:21 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM

It makes the mistake of assuming that all of this came from nothing.

It's not an assumption, it's a rejection of the argument that everything must have been created by a supernatural entity. Is it unwise to believe that this world arose naturally, just like every other thing we know of in this universe?

It is unwise. How does something arise from nothing? Everything in this Universe has to arise from something, so far as we have been able to determine.

No atheist or scientist will ever tell you that the universe arose out of nothing. We believe that it arose naturally (like everything else) and wasn't created by a magical being.

I'm on my basic phone, so I must be brief. The universe arising naturally is a glorified way of saying it arose from nothing. All you're doing @ this point is playing w/ words. Arising naturally? From what, pray tell? What started the Big Bang? Even if you believe the universe started itself, that would imply that the universe itself is divine. Not a theory I accept, but still more logical than atheism by far. I'm not a pantheist or a panentheist, but @ least the logic is there in a limited way.

I'm on my basic phone, so I must be brief. The universe arising naturally is a glorified way of saying it arose from nothing. All you're doing @ this point is playing w/ words. Arising naturally? From what, pray tell? What started the Big Bang? Even if you believe the universe started itself, that would imply that the universe itself is divine. Not a theory I accept, but still more logical than atheism by far. I'm not a pantheist or a panentheist, but @ least the logic is there in a limited way.

If you do not know the origin of the universe, then the only logical position about its origins is agnosticism on that matter. Why you would presuppose a creative mind is totally beyond me. Other than to fill a void fueled by fear inside of you I guess.

What does fear have to do w/ it, or is that just a stupid attempt to insult that fails & makes you look foolish? I'll assume that for now. Fear has nothing to do w/ it. Recognition that we are NOT all that & a bag of chips is much more relevant. The atheist is arrogant because he sets himself & the pitiful human race up as the master of all it surveys. In reality, w/o G-d, we are pretty sorry, & our lives are brutal, nasty, & short. The atheist's failure to see this is his arrogance. The agnostic is just a coward. His refusal to decide decides for him. Wuss.

Why are we even arguing about the first cause? Even if somehow we concede (which we will most likely not) that a sentient being created the universe, that is as far as we will ever get. It wouldn't be an argument for the Abrahamic God or for any particular god in that matter.

The universe arising naturally is a glorified way of saying it arose from nothing.

No, not at all. If we say that snowflakes form naturally, are we saying that they arose from nothing? No, we are simply stating they were shaped and created by the laws of physics. Same with the universe.

Arising naturally? From what, pray tell? What started the Big Bang?

No clue. Presumably, science will eventually figure it out, just like we figured out how natural disasters such as earthquakes happen (not acts of God, like people used to believe), how life came to it's present form (not via God, like people used to believe) and how the sun rises every morning (not through magic, as people used to believe).

Even if you believe the universe started itself, that would imply that the universe itself is divine.

Nope.

Actually, the majority of the world DOES believe that things like earthquakes, snowflakes, & life were initiated by G-d using natural processes. In other words, about 85% of the world thinks you're full of it. Atheism is essentially the cry of the angry & rebellious child, who thinks he is above the laws that G-d made for all of us. It is the ultimate level of bitchiness in a society that is loaded w/ it.

Actually, the majority of the world DOES believe that things like earthquakes, snowflakes, & life were initiated by G-d using natural processes.

So? That just shows the majority of the world believes in ad-hoc hypotheses.