10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:
- Thread starter ggazoo
- Start date
Why as in 'how' or why as in 'intent'?
on the contrary, if you ask an atheist why they believe god should not be taken seriously, they will provide an argument that fits into at least one of those 5 categories
Had enough answers yet ? Notice the variety ? Some more:
We are confining ourselves to those atheists who argue that God should not be taken seriously. That's a subset - it does not include, presumably, atheistic Catholic priests (for one example).
There are many different classification schemes used by various theists, for classifying atheists.
They aren't used by atheists, for unifying themselves.
That's not why I deny the existence of most of the Gods I specifically deny. For the ones that do fit: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
I believe no such thing.
My judgment of the nonexistence of various Gods does not rest on blind faith, and I do not say that all those who do think a particular God exists rest on blind faith either. Depends on the person, and the God.
Preponderance of evidence
I don't. I think science has pretty thoroughly researched intelligent design, for example.
I see much religious cause in all three of those wars, and I think that religion is only one of the causes of any war.
Experience. And "prove" is not the right word - "warn" is better.
I don't. Depends on the one involved.
I don't make that claim for myself.
I don't. Sometimes there's evidence, sometimes there isn't. We do our best with the evidence we have.
In your system of classification. Which yields 120 theoretically possible categories for any atheist's argument, and my original estimate of 40 max is proven an underestimate. But perhaps several will be shown unrealistic, and my estimate more of a practical maximum.LG said:
We are confining ourselves to those atheists who argue that God should not be taken seriously. That's a subset - it does not include, presumably, atheistic Catholic priests (for one example).
There are many different classification schemes used by various theists, for classifying atheists.
They aren't used by atheists, for unifying themselves.
Last edited:
Moderator's Note: Two threads with essentially the same topic are merged and the thread title adjusted slightly to reflect. First thread gets top billing
I think this is the most important one... and it depends on the definition of 'atheist'. I think for some militant atheists, this is a valid point... but for the majority of us (myself for sure) we do not claim that at all. We are open to the (extremely small) possibility that there actually is a God. Can most theists admit that there is a possibility that God does not exist?
If there is a God, I am 99.99999999328% sure that it is not the God that we read about in the bible.
You seem to specialize in non-answers. What evidence have you that god exists. You are suggesting that everything was created by god but that god alone was not created. If he wasn't created is it possible he doesn't exist ?
So how many categories would you like. Bear in mind that Christians have only one. If pressed ,they invariably fall back on their belief in the Bible.
Can you give us an example of an anthropocentric argument used to support atheism ?
Because they are clearly delusional. Every emotional high a theist has is shared by atheists. However people with different beliefs interpret these emotions differently.
I am perfectly well aware that many things can exist without my knowledge of them existing. But it is also near impossible to guess correctly at what exists and what doesn't.
In the case of god and all the things idiot theists attribute with him, it certainly does end up seemingly impossible. Theists are not simply happy with the fact an intelligent creator made the universe, but they have to add heaven, sons of god on Earth, and thousands of other things. It becomes quite pathetic really.
This is really weak. I pressume you take it on "blind faith" that a green monster does not exist on Pluto? It's just plain common sense, and not worth my time. I have no faith at all regarding green monsters on Pluto, or gods and their heavens.
Biological evolution is fact as demonstrated in all areas of science. There is no controversy about this in science. The only controversy comes from selfish religious people who know nothing, simply because they have a hard-on for being special.
By invoking a designer you're in fact making this universe so much more unlikely since a designer is a hugely complicated addition to the already complicated. Thereby making it far more unlikely. We could literally invent a billion hypothesis about the existence of the universe, and an intelligent creator would be just one.
Because creationism/intelligent design was totally refuted in court. The best "scientists" ID had to offer took on real science in a court room, and their argument was empirically proven false, and the judge saw that for himself. Type "Ken Miller" into YouTube and you will get a good 2 hour explanation as to why this was the case. Since there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, it is obviously not science. Once there is evidence, science will listen.
Well just imagine if the crusades had the machine guns, bombs, airplanes, rockets, gun ships and a larger population to kill also. So don't go using this body count argument. Simply put, it's easier to kill more people today than it ever has been.
I have no idea what their mission statements are, but they are probably bullshit.
No, we are not talking about internet chat rooms or forums. We are talking about the way children grow up having religion shoved down their throats. Children are defenseless against indoctrination. When educating children, it is the adults responsibility (whether it be parent or teacher), that what they are telling their children is the truth. I'm not against teaching religion in schools, but I am very much against teaching it in such a way that a child should believe it. If I had children, I would never teach my child to be atheist or religious. Bring them up to be intelligent and responsible and give them an opportunity to learn for themselves instead of shoving dogma down their throat.
"Truth". What a joke. Nobody knows the truth... not even atheists. Atheists simply have no believe or place any relevance in god, thats all. Anybody who claims to know the truth is a complete idiot.
Because people who take to writing scripture are totally transparent. In recognization of multiple religions, including those that failed and nobody today knows of, they were competing for power and followers, and told of great fables. Just look at how the story of Jesus is plagarised from much older idols. Look at how Paul never even knew of Jesus' life in his writings, and those are the earliest we know of. But the fable grew, he gained followers, there was now demand for more writings on this Jesus fellow. Then came a gospel long after Paul, and even much longer after the alleged Jesus, yet they could go into so much detail. Very suspicious.
Things may be sketchy about the beginnings of christianity, but one thing we can assert, is that the idol Jesus, is fictional. Nobody can heal the blind, literally walk on water, or live after death. These were just added for effect. All religions do that.
Really ggazoo, you have always made me laugh more than any other theist on here.
How disappointing!, you expect me to believe in just one god, why not 2 or more??
isn't more better?
Last edited by a moderator:
for the same reason I reject testimonies of ufo sightings, elevation, ghosts, telekinetic powers etc etc. where is the proof?
I don't believe that. A lot of things we can't see or smell or touch or measure exist in this universe. This is not a fair question since a lot of atheists will agree with me. Don't generalize
erhh isn't that a bit silly? So not believing in the teachings of Scientology also rests on blind faith? Or not believing in astrology also rests on blind faith?
It's the ones who proclaim that something exists who need to show that it does, not the other way around.
it may seem that way, but that doesn't mean it's the case. Don't say things are 'obvious', just because they seem logical to you.
Evolution is a proven idea, an elegant idea, an idea that requires no supernatural powers of any kind and is able to produce enormous complexity. What is more plausible then? The elegant, simple idea, or the supernatural idea?
Science has researched these posibilities and has found them lacking in many ways. Instead it found a better, simpler and more elegant answer that better explains the state of our world. And that is what science is all about.
Nothing is rejected out of hand, everything is looked at, but when something is simply wrong, it is wrong and there is no need to pursue it further
I'm an atheist but i have never claimed this. My knowledge of history isn't all that good. But I think it's fair to say religious wars have killed A LOT of people overtime. tens of millions easy.
Because 'glorifying' a proven, solid idea that actually works in the real world is a more productive stance that glorifying fairy-tales.
again i'm an atheist, but i don't believe that. I don't shove my beliefs down people's throats...I generally don't talk about it at all unless someones asks me. Then I will answer what i feel...that there is no God.
Because what we know to be true is based on what actaully exists in the world, what has been seen and proven and tested. But we also recognize that our truth isn't complete. That's why we still have science...to make our knowledge greater and greater and to evolve our understanding.
What theists do is stand still and mumble prayers. They don't advance their truths, and thus they don't evolve. Which is a dead-end
who said our knowledge is too sparse to 'know anything about the ancient world'? I think there are quite a few historians who would disagree...
there i've answered your questions as truthfully as i know how. I don't attack nor defend, i just answered questions, posed to me.
For several reasons: they could be lying (and there is evidence abundant that people do lie); Occam's Razor would suggest a far simpler explanation as the cause of the supposed revelation.
Inaccurate assessment / understanding of the atheist position. Atheists on the whole do NOT claim that the thing "must not exist" - only that we choose not to believe that it does exist.
Again, as many of us have said on other threads: "To Not Believe as True" is not the same as "To Believe As False"
I refer the honourable gentleman to the fact that he is referring only to STRONG atheists (i.e. those that have the positive belief that God does not exist) and not to the majority who are WEAK atheists (who merely do not have the belief that God exists.
I refer the honourable gentleman to an education in such matters.
Science requires evidence and works in a rational way. Creationism and/or ID have no evidence that rationally supports those claims.
[quoteHow can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?[/quote]I don't.
I don't. I find the rationality (or not) of the analysis itself to be the determining factor in whether sites are biased, unbiased, or just plain stupid.
I guess this depends in which type of chat-room you ask this question. The answers you get will most likely be bias.
I don't claim to know the truth. Most atheists I know don't claim to know the truth - they merely do not believe the theist version of the truth on the basis of not having the rational evidence.
Where have you seen this happen? Please feel free to quote sources that demonstrate this point.
That is what puzzles me the most. I really think that time will lay this delusion to rest. Common ancestor is magic, it is the anti-Science.
I would love for the consensus to be - WE REALLY DONT KNOW SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE STUFF UP ANYMORE. That would be the best press conference i ever saw. The easiest way to see it is false is that there has never been even the slightest proof that intelligence has evolved. That is the holy grail of evolution, you can take everything else, the morphing shapes and the similarities amongst species is window dressing. I can prove that the human brain functions as it did from day one, i would love to see anyone attempt to prove otherwise but that will never happen.
And what was it with that reptile brain stuff? What a farce.
Last edited:
I do not think that it is disputed that Humans (assuming you mean homo sapiens) have not evolved much since becoming "human". We have developed our functionality and intelligence, but not really evolved beyond superficial matters such as height, appearance etc. So merely mutation within the species.
But surely this simple matter is not what you were referring to, is it?
BIG Strawman fallacy to you if it is.
BIIIIIG one.
Not just a little one but a gianormous one of, dare I say it, Biblical proportions (and I have a Laaaarge Bible!)
I do not think that it is disputed that Humans (assuming you mean homo sapiens) have not evolved much since becoming "human". We have developed our functionality and intelligence, but not really evolved beyond superficial matters such as height, appearance etc. So merely mutation within the species.
But surely this simple matter is not what you were referring to, is it?
BIG Strawman fallacy to you if it is.
BIIIIIG one.
Not just a little one but a gianormous one of, dare I say it, Biblical proportions (and I have a Laaaarge Bible!)
When the process of evolution begins it does not stop. If that is what you are alluding to. Evolution or devolution makes no difference, it is the process of change. Once this has been identified and can be monitored we then see it can NEVER stop unless it was never part of the process. In that case it never changes untill it ceases to exist. This i believe is a fact.
Well at some point you believe life 'sprang' into existence also, without anything like it coming before.
well you are wrong
there are species of animals that have stopped evolving, because they fit perfectly in their eco-system. Granted they have not COMPLETELY stopped, but the changes over millions of years are minute.
the best known examples of this are certain species of shark (especially the deep-see one) and the morene eel