703 replies to this topic

[Writersblock]

I see a few spelling mistakes I made in my post. Sorry 'bout that - late night posting and all.

Another short follow-up.

and then extremists from some religions take well... extreme actions.
which adds to violence.

I might be supplying my own "therefore" to this quote, but isn't this a pretty obvious ad hominem fallacy?

[Martini]

I just kinda wanted to start a debate where we all talk about our religions and well, show why we chose that religion, and just kind of talk about religion in general.
Anyone with me?

I'm an atheist because I require extraordinary evidence to believe in extraordinary claims. There is obviously none for the existence of God/gods. Does this mean there are no gods? No. It means until I'm aware of any sufficient evidence I see no reason for such fantastic beliefs. There may be flying pigs, but until someone brings forth sufficient evidence for them, I'll be without belief in them too.

[Ploper]

yes, Carlosn, a friend of mine is Christian for exactly those reasons
but I find it hard to just start believing something, and firmly believe it is true

If an atheist doesnt believe in God and dies, absolutely nothing happens and s/he ceases to exist if s/he was right, or s/he can go to hell if s/he is wrong.

um, correct me if I'm wrong (you know how my self-esteem is, I believe I am wrong)
but isn't there only space in heaven for 14,000 or so people?
I think that most (or probably more...? who knows) of that would be filled up by the Christian priests, and nuns etc. in the world
so what would make me good enough?
besides, me goin to hell should give you a better chance of making it to heaven
(or does it? there's a post about whether cancelling someone out increases your chances of living in another thread)
so why should you be upset?

[Martini]

yes, Carlosn, a friend of mine is Christian for exactly those reasons
but I find it hard to just start believing something, and firmly believe it is true

Or maybe even impossible. I can go around saying I believe in Santa Clause just to make sure that in the slim chance he does exist I don't get a lump of coal for Christmas, but is this the same as believing? I say no. That's just one of the many problems with Carlosn27's "playing it safe" idea:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

One good argument that I don't think has been addressed in either of the above links is what if God sends theists to Hell for believing in Him as a form of insurance yet rewards atheists for being true to themselves? Pascal's wager is obviously flawed in many ways.

[Writersblock]

but isn't there only space in heaven for 14,000 or so people?

I don't understand this. Where does this concept come from?

[Writersblock]

I'm an atheist because I require extraordinary evidence to believe in extraordinary claims.

But Martini, have you ever honestly explored the possbility with an open mind so that you might actually find extraordinary evidence? Most atheists are "passivists" in my experience, just kind of resting on some notion that if the evidence was there that "science" would find it. Do you take that attitude, or have you ever genuinely tried to explore spirituality? I am not harping on your personal ways at all, just asking in a truly curious attitude.

[Ploper]

but isn't there only space in heaven for 14,000 or so people?

I don't understand this. Where does this concept come from?

umm. that's what the guy handing out Jesus pamphlets at a cancer walk I went to told me.
And I've heard it mentioned in other forums
maybe it's not 14,000. but it's something like that

[Ploper]

oh wait, now I know
the 14,000 people make to heaven is a jehova's witness thing
and it's 144,000.
So I withdraw the previous statements regarding this

[Martini]

I don't understand this. Where does this concept come from?

He's talking about this.
My advice to Ploper is to not bother debating any possible problems with the Bible. Apologists will ALWAYS find a way to wiggle out of contradictions, inconsistencies, etc.

But Martini, have you ever honestly explored the possbility with an open mind so that you might actually find extraordinary evidence?

Can you be more specific? What sort of exploring might lead me to evidence of an intelligent being that is responsible for creating everything, punishes and rewards, has no limits, knows all, etc.?

Most atheists are "passivists" in my experience, just kind of resting on some notion that if the evidence was there that "science" would find it.

You say that as if believing in a god is the default position and by requiring evidence for things and not "exploring" this god idea, one is being lazy or just too accepting of "science".

You're assuming that most atheists haven't explored the possibility of God/gods or that most weren't brought up with religion and left it because belief in fanciful ideas without evidence didn't make much sense to them. Have you explored every incredible idea that has come your way? I bet you haven't explored if carrying a rabbit's foot around will really bring you luck or if walking under a ladder is a bad idea. Why not?

It sounds like you're basically saying that atheists are too lazy to think for themselves and just believe what scientists tell them to. You couldn't be more wrong. Most atheists I know have spent a lot of time reading about other religions, learning the psychology behind why people believe weird things, etc. I would say much more so than your average religious person that just accepts what their parents told them about the nature of their god as being correct.

Do you take that attitude, or have you ever genuinely tried to explore spirituality? I am not harping on your personal ways at all, just asking in a truly curious attitude.

I don't know what you mean by "explore spirituality". I was brought up with religion like most Americans and I've learned about many. I'm into the martial arts and have met many Buddhists and have even learned to meditate. I've never seen any evidence for spirits, souls or anything most generally would consider supernatural.

Speaking of Buddhism, I find the following very enlightening:

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

You wouldn't consider Buddhists with this outlook to lack belief in God/gods because they're pacifistic in regards to science finding their beliefs or non-beliefs, would you? This outlook is the same as mine and every atheist I've ever met. Our non-belief is not because of any pacification on our part.

[Writersblock]

He's talking about this.

Ah. Moronic. Too much surrounding religion is fallacy heaped upon misunderstanding. This is such.

Apologists will ALWAYS find a way to wiggle out of contradictions, inconsistencies, etc.

True, just as critics will create them when they don't really exist.

You're assuming that most atheists haven't explored the possibility of God/gods or that most weren't brought up with religion and left it because belief in fanciful ideas without evidence didn't make much sense to them.

I'm not assuming anything. I never said all athiests do this. I am merely stating what I have encountered. Admittedly I only know about 4 staunch athiests, none of whom have ever even so much as read a single sacred text. I know many others who call themselves such becuase they just don't have any formed beleif structure, but when you get down to it, they are not true athiests.

I was brought up with religion like most Americans and I've learned about many. I'm into the martial arts and have met many Buddhists and have even learned to meditate. I've never seen any evidence for spirits, souls or anything most generally would consider supernatural.

I would say you have, then, explored religion. Again, it was nothing to poke at you, but a serious inquiry.

You wouldn't consider Buddhists with this outlook to lack belief in God/gods because they're pacifistic in regards to science finding their beliefs or non-beliefs, would you?

No, I wouldn't. I have read the teachings of Buddha in my own exploration. I think they have a lot right. I don't agree that a Buddhist must necessarly disbelieve in a God, but I see your point and generally agree.

outlook is the same as mine and every atheist I've ever met

Then you and I have drastically different interactions with those who profess "atheism." Most who I have met surround themselves with science and philosophy and then point to spirituality as if they understand it. They are three different things, all of which (in my opinion) seek the same end; but which require different approaches to discovery. You cannot, for example, pholosophise yourself into a scientific law. Nor can you use the scientific method to explore the nature of abstract concepts best dealt with using philosophy. Religion takes yet another approach. I find it startling when people say they have never, ever had a spiritual experience - yet this must be the case with many.

You say that as if believing in a god is the default position and by requiring evidence for things and not "exploring" this god idea, one is being lazy or just too accepting of "science".

I would offer that for most of man's existence belief in the myth of God is the default. I don't mean that requiring evidence is laziness at all. What I am getting at is the notion that most people, regardless of what they believe, are generally lazy about it. They adhere to either the "genetic fallacy" or "consequences of belief" fallacy and call it an informed, reasoned position. For the athiest it's usually just a reverse lazyness. They see all that mankind has learned and therefore automatically dismiss God based upon 18th century reasoning that was in essence an ad hominem attack on the Catholic Church. This sounds like it's not your case at all, so I am definatly NOT lumping you into this group.

Part of the problem with this whole discussion is the so called "enlightenment" theories on religion. As a consequence, religion has become polarized - especially in the United States. Theists have divorced science and common sense from their religion, and atheists have embraced (almost as a religion) the ever changing and fallable theories of science to the exclusion of all else. As I said in my first post, there is no common ground with which to have any kind of meaningful discussion.