Atheists The New Theists ?

You do realize that Jaerik wasn't exactly talking about Atheists in the best light, right? You're like a hardcore militant Atheists and he just basically said that Atheists and Christians (most relevant to you, but it's really generalized for most religions) are no better than each other.

You're basically applauding him for him telling you the same exact thing me and many others have already told you, that you're no different than the Christians you love to hate so much.

His overall point was more or less that Atheists have been persecuted forever and even now when they speak out they're labeled in a very negative light..

he was more saying that they are no more different than we are, except that we believe in one less god than they do. Try to get the direction right next time.

I'm applauding him for saying the same thing I've been telling you, learn to read.

This.

Only thinking critically can leave you in a hole. I prefer to take everything in and think expansively.

Both abrasive atheists and theist annoy me. To say that atheists are more capable of thinking critically is laughable if this and many other religion threads on here are any indication.

Especially when it comes to...Oh! look who showed up late to the party...

I don't know about other religions, but there's definitely a significant stigma within the Christian teachings concerning "godless" people and people who otherwise shun the "true" god, and obviously Christians are supposed to work towards being these wonderful people and thus it's easy for them to feel like they are truly good people and significantly moreso than those who are not Christian. I would not be surprised if other religions had similar teachings, as that's an incredibly powerful psychological device. Not only does it create a feel-good feeling of superiority, it strongly discourages leaving the faith because of how your peers will look upon you.

Related story: my mother and grandmother were watching a tv documentary on the guy who did "the last lecture" a while back. At one point the question of religion came up and he simply said that he wasn't going to talk about his beliefs here. When they went to commercials, my grandmother immediately said "I think he's Christian." When asked why, she responded that she "could tell that he's a good man". That she associated being "good" and being Christian so strongly was amazing to me.

Nobody was talking about ways to prefer to think, discussing inability to think in a particular way.

To suggest that people who follow faith maintain the ability to think critically is laughable.

I say the same about people who would try to claim a house is haunted without proof (as there can be none) they are equally whack jobs and should be treated and dealt with as such. (appropriately).

i think good people are good people, religion doesn't change that. in my opinion what you believe in is a part of your personality, for me to criticize what you believe in, would be like me criticizing your taste in music or humor because it differs from mine.

for me, if you don't believe in God and can live a healthy good life, that's great, and if you do believe in a God and can live a healthy good life is great too.

for atheists to say things like religious people are stupid sheep and HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE etc, tells me that person is the same type of person who condemn atheists to hell for not believing in God. they're both *** trying to shove their *** on one another.

The difference is somebodies lack of ability of critical thinking (relying on faith) by definition is stupid, calling it how it is with proof and evidence is far from pushing their beliefs (or lack of).

lack of critical thinking? Albert Einstein was an agnostic, which is what i am. i do not pretend to know if there is or is not a God. i understand my capabilities as a simple man, and i do not try to pretend to surpass this.

both sides are, in my estimation, have to have some kind of faith. the Atheists faith is in the scientists, faith in a man who is as much prone to mistakes as we are seems to be as ludicrous as the person who believes in something you cannot see, hear, touch, or smell, like a personal God.

I don't get why people really care what the person next to them believes in or doesn't believe in... being a theist or an atheist doesn't make you a good or bad person... some people are *** and some people are not... some people have the misfortune of being brought up by people that spread ignorance and really don't take the time to understand each other... People that blame religion for everything are ignorant and people who say atheists can only be immoral heathens are just as ignorant... I've know people on both sides of the fence and I personally have never had a problem with them based on these reasons...

Since I've been on these boards I've witnessed a lot of intolerance on both sides... but maybe I'm ignorant to the plight of the atheist or something as I can't believe the guy compared it to being black and to being gay... both of those are part of who you are and you can't fight or change that... you examine your life and make a conscious decision somewhere a long the way to be one way or the other in this line...

There are *** on both sides though... but that's just human nature I guess... My way is the best and you should see it that way blah blah blah... personally I think anyone should be able to choose either path and not be bothered by it...

Don't most politicians fake being religious like they fake loving their husbands and wives?

I think Jet says the same thing in every thread lol... /copy paste "yeah that will make them think I am far superior to them" *maniacal laugh*

If you think Albert Einstein was anything but an atheist you have clearly only seen his quotes used out of context.

Many of us have noticed the same thing. He sure does favor the name calling too.

I have faith in no man. I accept the findings of men when they meet the standards of the scientific method, which includes(and hinges on) adjustment in the face of error. Religion isn't subject to error. It is infallible, because God is infallible. Having faith in anything is, by definition, unintelligent.

And you're absolutely right- good people are good people, no matter their religious adherence or inadherence. You seem to be having a difficult time differentiating between being well-intentioned and being critically-minded.

Religion isn't stupid.

Organized religion is stupid.

Uh, what? Organized religion gets a bad reputation, but being collective in your religious beliefs is no worse than flying solo. Just as we're a (sometimes bad) pattern-seeking animal, we're also a congregating one. Whether you're uncritical in a large group, or uncritical on your own, you're fighting against your intelligence.

I disagree with you on this point. Someone believing that there is a higher power in the universe than themselves - something that created life from nothing/the universe from nothing is a hell of a lot more realistic and plausible than the main 10000 religions which all claim "this is the true religion!".

There is no evidence to support anyone's faith no matter what faith they choose - however I do have to stand up for those who believe something without evidence over those who believe something for evidence which has been proven wrong/impossible anyways or contradicts every other religion out there.

Basically if you want to believe that there was/is a god then go for it. But if you are willing to follow a book whether its the bible of the Torah or w/e then you are just fooling yourself believing man made bs.

You're arguing in defense of the thinnest kid at fat camp. The plausibility of either scenario is an overwhelming absurdity, and believing in either a more all-encompassing "creator" or a best selling author that snapped the universe into existence is equally uncritical. There's no logical foundation in either conjecture. Pretending one is significantly more plausible than the other is a demonstration of how limited your understanding of the plausibility of both is.

You sound like you have definitive proof that there is no god. Atheism is the disbelief in a god/gods. There is no evidence to show that there is or is not gods. So the default answer is to say - no - there is no god. However without definitive proof people can believe whatever they want to believe. Hence why its called Faith and not Fact. You seem to behave like you have some knowledge that nobody else knows about. Don't be so sure of yourself.

I'm not saying that the situation I presented has any merit. It really does not. I just see it as a more reasonable stance than anything that organized religion can or ever will be able to offer.

edit: ima sleep.. its 4:30am.. fk lol

The support for the lack of any supernatural presence is virtually infinite. Its shown every day, in every way, when we've no need to explain anything by any means of (in some way) observable science. For everything we don't have a definitive explanation for, we have a number of supporting scientific theories that are singularly or cumulatively sufficient.

Until there are a reasonable number of nuances in the world that require explanation transcending the scientific method, the only reason a position of agnosticism is required is solely due to the "anything is possible" side of rationality. Short of that little acknowledgement, being uncertain of the absurdity of the alternative is, by definition, unintelligent.

Don't lecture me on things I've covered several times already(like the irrationality of blatant atheism).

I'm just gonna throw 2 out there....Not that I believe in God or anything...but just sayin. 1) Stonehenge.. 2) The massive boulders in the world's deserts that seem to just move on their own. These 2 things can't really be accurately explained through science, based on their time period built (Stonehenge) or the environment around them (the boulders).

Agnoticism only makes sense if you also take the stance that all zebras could also simply be the reincarnation of a divine figure that one day accidentally got stuck in a blender and got mixed into a strawberry smoothie that promptly fell and shattered to the floor after being poured and seeped into the tile instantly before it could be wiped up and became a potato that was eaten by a horse. The horse eating the potato spontaneously creates a zygote in a female zebra but only at the same time as a male and female zebra are getting it on so as to not get caught and found out to be an actual divine figure.

What the hell?... Oh wait that is your point... lol

It is correct to say that "There's always a tiny chance that it's true" but at what point do you say "But given that there's no evidence at all whatsoever, for now we can safely assume that there's no reason to believe in the divinity of zerbas."

I also want to point out that it agnosticism and atheism are apples and oranges.

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.

Wait, am I on 4chan?

This is going to be long winded.

I'm going to say for all your science, you can not explain if or if not the existence of a god or gods.

Most of the Atheists that point at science as the reason for their Atheism, do not understand the science themselves, but have complete trust in the "scientists" that do.

Personally, I like to keep an open mind. I've heard both sides of these arguments before.

I'm going to go a little off topic here, but it is relevant.

First, I'm going to say, when I was younger I read works by Stephen Hawking and many, many, many articles by NASA. They were fascinating to me.

But now, I always laugh on the inside at the people who point to the Big Bang theory as proof that there is no Gods, when my impression of the Big Bang is that it is just another creation myth. I personally follow and prefer the idea of Plasma Cosmology theory and the Electric Universe.

Many times when I bring that up, both in real life and on the internet, I end up getting ridiculed, even by good friends of mine. Why? Not because I believe in another cosmological model, but because I don't believe in the same cosmological model as they do. The Big Bang theory is so engrained as fact now it is ridiculous.

The Big Bang theory was created by a catholic priest and astronomer. Since then the theory was assumed as fact. Starting with the answer and developing a model to conform to it never works in science. What is needed is the forensic approach. This is the evidence I have now, this is the evidence I can see now, let's investigate and try to discover what happened.

But, no I'm told that I'm wrong. Never do they provide me with proof of the theory they hold so dear, but they simply tell me I must be wrong. Why? Because a great many people trust the mathematicians (not scientists, mathematicians) that continually create new theories and need to redesign their models every single time a new discovery comes along that they didn't predict. By the way, if your model didn't predict the discovery, there is something wrong with your model.

I personally see no logic in the Big Bang when compared to the Plasma Cosmological model. In fact, I see most of the Big Bang and it's 90% of the universe is made up invisible dark matter and energy as a laughable attempt to preserve a broken model.

None the less, when people do tell me about new discoveries made with all the technological space marvels that we have today, I read about them and keep an open mind.

So, for all of the Atheists out there that seem make it their job to shove their beliefs (non-belief, whatever) in the face of everyone who doesn't share your cause. You're acting exactly like the people that persecuted Galileo Galilei. Think about it.

Posting in a religion thread.

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/You-were-on-your-way-home-when-you-died.jpg