28 replies to this topic

[The phantom of the opera]

PRO'S for being an atheist.Atheist often have a better education (although this may very well be coincidal or be of other reasons)Atheist generally have a better abillity to reason as they tend to think logically while religious people (especially christians) tend to use closed circle logic.for an example i had a discussion with a friend about religion and she said that god must be real because the bible said so. i told her that there are hundreds, mabe thousand of other religious scripts that claim that their god/goddes/gods is the real one. when she heard this she said that they were all wrong and that the bible couldn't be wrong because god had written it and that god wouldn't lie about existing.Atheists are generally more understanding and diplomatic about other people and their religions or values.Atheists are less likely to commit crimes for some reason unknown to me (not including shoplifting and other less severe crimes as i haven't heard any information about those minor crimes)CON'S for being an atheistReligious people live about three years longer in general, this is believed to be because praying or meditating stimulates a part of the brain to produce hormones, it's noted that it doesn't matter what religion you pray to or meditate too.Atheists are more likely to be scared of death because they don't want to stop existing.Atheist have more of a feeling of helplessness as they believe there is no higher power to help them, only themselves, while religious people believe that they have their higher powers that may help them.

[Ragamuffin]

Hardline Atheism is as dogmatic as hardline Theism, and both refuse to even consider the possibility that they just might be wrong.I'll just go ahead and say that I don't know or care about any of it, because either way it's not going to change anything in the here and now. It's interesting to think about the possibilities, but really it's just one of those issues where I'll end up talking myself in circles about levels of existence, how imaginary creations have real-life impacts and are therefore "real", collectives, the technological singularity, etc.

[38542788]

I believe in God because, if there is no God then I have nothing to lose when I die. But If there is a God, than I have everything to gain.

Do you get it? This is an iron clad argument that no one can dispute. As I said it may not turn them. but I promise it will make them think about it.

That's not how belief works. If I threaten to kill you if you don't believe that the Earth is flat, that will in no way cause you to believe that the Earth is flat. You may want to believe that (assuming I have some way of checking your thoughts), but even in that case you can't force yourself to adopt the belief.Aside from that, Pascal's wager doesn't take into account all possible results of the wager, it assumes a binary result of god exists, or god doesn't exist (as opposed to some other more complicated cosmology), and it ties two other results onto that. It assumes that if god doesn't exist, death results in the termination of consciousness (nothing to lose), while god existing (plus you believing in god) results in some sort of paradise (everything to gain). Even if we only consider the second part, you run into a lot of problems. Suppose that god exists, and this particular god is ironic!god, ironic!god enjoys irony and so he punishes those who believe in the existence of god, and rewards atheists with paradise. Why would this scenario be anymore absurd than Christian!god or Buddhist!god or whatever existing? The wager obviously doesn't provide a useful means of choosing belief, there is no evidence that a particular belief will result in a particular afterlife.Even aside from these first two points (the lack of "choice" involved in belief, and the lack of a fixed result based on a particular belief), there is yet another problem. Belief itself is not what is actually required of religious observance. The Aztecs had a complex system of human sacrifice tied to their religion, or even if you back off from that, there's many contemporary religions that proscribe certain things like contraceptives or homosexuality and prescribe certain things like tithing. There are actions tied to those beliefs, so for your hypothetical scientist it's not as simple as belief in god just in case (even if such a thing in itself is absurd), it's more like believe in god and sacrifice the hearts of your enemies to him, which would sort of get in the way of that whole being a scientist thing.

[Shai]

Its simple, since no one has no knowledge of the human creation nor the way life works there things don't happen on their own people just believe and take it upon their selves that that we just were fated to be here and, its like when our parents used to scare us that there was a boogeyman, but when we looked up under the bed that ONE night nothing was possibly was there, making ourselves rule out 2 things; that just because we can't see it, it doesn't exist and the second the possibility of "boogeyman man" under the bed. What I am saying that being atheist is just being completely ignorant. Its kind of like us being new members of a forum and not having complete knowledge of how it works and the rule, instead of being under the impression that it just happen to just come about , and there isn't anyone higher up (i.e. Admins, mods) that can control us or has a say of what we do here.Maybe the the non-existance of a boogeyman under certain peoples bed is what caused the thought that someone didn't create them beyond their own parentsor the world they live in, AKA GOD.P.S. You don't know what could be under the bed right now.

Edited by Grey Matter, 10 September 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[38542788]

Its simple, since no one has no knowledge of the human creation nor the way life works there things don't happen on their own people just believe and take it upon their selves that that we just were fated to be here and, its like when our parents used to scare us that there was a boogeyman, but when we looked up under the bed that ONE night nothing was possibly was there, making ourselves rule out 2 things; that just because we can't see it, it doesn't exist and the second the possibility of "boogeyman man" under the bed. What I am saying that being atheist is just being completely ignorant. Its kind of like us being new members of a forum and not having complete knowledge of how it works and the rule, instead of being under the impression that it just happen to just come about , and there isn't anyone higher up (i.e. Admins, mods) that can control us or has a say of what we do here.Maybe the the non-existance of a boogeyman under certain peoples bed is what caused the thought that someone didn't create them beyond their own parentsor the world they live in, AKA GOD.P.S. You don't know what could be under the bed right now.

This is completely incoherent.Like I mentioned in my last post, belief by itself is meaningless, people can't read your mind to find out what you believe, the reason belief is important is because it's a guide to action.If you're a grown-ass man (I'm making some assumptions about your age and gender here), claiming that there's a monster under your bed (and regularly telling people that, and poking around under it with a weapon etc.), you're eventually going to get yourself a time out in the rubber room and the world outside will be a slightly less crazy place.

Edited by 38542788, 13 September 2011 - 05:26 AM.

[Shai]

This is where you are wrong. Like I said you don't know whats under your bed right now do you? You wouldn't have any reason to suspect that because you probably have never encountered someone under your bed, neither do you check everyday, you can never just assume that such things don't exist because your illusion can be someones reality. Even though I was using that as a mere example to show that what isn't seen by the naked eye doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I never even actually said boogeyman was a monster. I guess that's what you believe. So you're saying their isn't the possibility of people hiding being under the beds?

Spoiler

http://www.bulawayo2... under bed.html

Anyway,the only evidence I need to prove that there is possibility of a god because everyone lack of knowledge of the earth and life itself. This is fact, that you can't make something out of nothing. If you created something wouldn't you know about it more than anyone else? Like I said atheism is ignorance, nothing more.

Edited by Grey Matter, 13 September 2011 - 06:57 AM.

[38542788]

This is where you are wrong. Like I said you don't know whats under your bed right now do you? You wouldn't have any reason to suspect that because you probably have never encountered someone under your bed, neither do you check everyday, you can never just assume that such things don't exist because your illusion can be someones reality. Even though I was using that as a mere example to show that what isn't seen by the naked eye doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I never even actually said boogeyman was a monster. I guess that's what you believe. So you're saying their isn't the possibility of people hiding being under the beds?

Spoiler

http://www.bulawayo2... under bed.html

Anyway,the only evidence I need to prove that there is possibility of a god because everyone lack of knowledge of the earth and life itself. This is fact, that you can't make something out of nothing. If you created something wouldn't you know about it more than anyone else? Like I said atheism is ignorance, nothing more.

I don't have to "know" what's under my bed. We're discussing belief not the nature of some sort of objective knowledge of things.I don't believe that there's anything under my bed because my previous experiences have informed me that I shouldn't expect there to be anything under it. I don't think anyone can say that I'm being unreasonable for saying that I believe there is nothing under my bed.I don't believe that there's anything in existence that most people colloquially call "god" since I haven't observed any evidence for such a thing (no matter the definition people give for this "god"). Why would you say that this belief I hold is unreasonable?The important thing is how my belief informs my actions. For example, I don't deny global warming, though various religious people cite their eschatologies as reason for why global warming can't be real because that's not how their scripture says the apocalypse is supposed to go down. I don't hate homosexuals, though again, various religious people lobby against and actively discriminate against them. I don't try to prevent the use of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa or try to reduce access to or criminalize abortion, though yet again, various religious groups try to do that.Your argument seems to be that some agent must have created the world for it to have existed, is that right? If you believe that is the case, how does that inform your behavior? If this "god" of yours exists, what does it actually mean for humanity? Does it mean we have to follow a certain scripture or set of dogma? How did you go from "agent must have created the world" to "have to behave in a certain way"? If you claim that we don't have to behave in a certain way because of this god of yours, then what is the difference between a universe without a creative agent, and a universe with one?I'm also not sure what scope you're taking here. If you're literally just talking about "Earth and life", then actually people do have a pretty good idea how that came about. If you're talking about the big bang, there's theories about that too. There are a variety of causes (though in the case of the big bang that's not quite a proper term since time didn't exist "before") that do not require a human like intelligence taking part in what happened. This scope I'm talking about is also important because people in the past always assigned agency to things that they don't understand and called it god. There used to be rain-gods, earth-gods, sea-gods, death-gods, and a variety of other gods that controlled parts of the natural world that were once not understood. You seem to be clinging to some sort of creator-god just because you don't understand the process of creation. That doesn't mean that the question is unanswerable, there are people investigating all the time, it's how we discover new knowledge and improve out lot in the world.

[Shai]

I don't have to "know" what's under my bed. We're discussing belief not the nature of some sort of objective knowledge of things.I don't believe that there's anything under my bed because my previous experiences have informed me that I shouldn't expect there to be anything under it. I don't think anyone can say that I'm being unreasonable for saying that I believe there is nothing under my bed.I don't believe that there's anything in existence that most people colloquially call "god" since I haven't observed any evidence for such a thing (no matter the definition people give for this "god"). Why would you say that this belief I hold is unreasonable?The important thing is how my belief informs my actions. For example, I don't deny global warming, though various religious people cite their eschatologies as reason for why global warming can't be real because that's not how their scripture says the apocalypse is supposed to go down. I don't hate homosexuals, though again, various religious people lobby against and actively discriminate against them. I don't try to prevent the use of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa or try to reduce access to or criminalize abortion, though yet again, various religious groups try to do that.Your argument seems to be that some agent must have created the world for it to have existed, is that right? If you believe that is the case, how does that inform your behavior? If this "god" of yours exists, what does it actually mean for humanity? Does it mean we have to follow a certain scripture or set of dogma? How did you go from "agent must have created the world" to "have to behave in a certain way"? If you claim that we don't have to behave in a certain way because of this god of yours, then what is the difference between a universe without a creative agent, and a universe with one? There used to be rain-gods, earth-gods, sea-gods, death-gods, and a variety of other gods that controlled parts of the natural world that were once not understood. You seem to be clinging to some sort of creator-god just because you don't understand the process of creation. That doesn't mean that the question is unanswerable, there are people investigating all the time, it's how we discover new knowledge and improve out lot in the world.

You still are denying the possibility that something or someone could be under your bed. You don't have deceive evidence that there will ever be someone or something under your bed without your knowledge. Furthermore you don't have decisive proof that a creator does not exist. Of course people are always investigating because they didn't create the earth or life nor the can they replicate it. Even scientists themselves who have studied the earth were astounded by the earth and solar system's design to where they themselves believed that there had to be a creator of the earth. I don't believe there are other gods relating to the ones you mentioned. What could you possibly mean do we have to follow a certain way? You must have some type of belief that if there is a god we have to follow rules. Is that your reasoning for not believing in a creator because you don't want to be bound by rules?If you designed something for a specific purpose would you want it to do otherwise? I think not. If we were supposed to act a certain way wouldn't it be some time of written or given law from the creator of how we are supposed to act?Of course you wouldn't see the evidence because you don't believe something doesn't exist. Maybe you will realize the when you think about things like, how the sun is placed perfectly where we all can't freeze or burn to death. No one can ever have that thought or idea because as you stated we investigate to find answers which means we lack knowledge. Ergo it is impossible for there not to be someone beyond us human life forms to create life or everything for that matter.I mean honestly can you proof that such a thing or person doesn't exist? I really don't understand your "belief and action" concept you keep bringing up.

[38542788]

[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']You still are denying the possibility that something or someone could be under your bed. You don't have deceive evidence that there will ever be someone or something under your bed without your knowledge. Furthermore you don't have decisive proof that a creator does not exist. Of course people are always investigating because they didn't create the earth or life nor the can they replicate it. Even scientists themselves who have studied the earth were astounded by the earth and solar system's design to where they themselves believed that there had to be a creator of the earth. [/quote]Again, we're not talking about some sort of perfect objective knowledge, we're talking about belief, there's a big difference.I don't need proof that something isn't under my bed, and I don't need proof that god doesn't exist. I merely need to act in a certain way consistent with my beliefs. I don't believe there is something under my bed, so I don't check under my bed. I don't believe in any sort of god, so I don't act in the same manner as people who do.I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of what's under my bed (or about the existence of god), but that has nothing to do with with my belief concerning those matters. I don't see any evidence for stuff under my bed (or god) so I behave as though they don't exist.And to follow up on this "evidence" thing that you don't seem too familiar with, here's some stats on the beliefs of scientists: http://www.stephenja.../file002.htmlSo please, explain again to me how all these scientists believe in the anthropic principle.[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']I don't believe there are other gods relating to the ones you mentioned. [/quote]That's exactly my point.We already know what causes rain, or death, or why there's earthquakes etc. We don't have a perfect understanding of abiogenesis or the big bang so you just shoehorned in a creator-god as opposed to a rain-god or whatever someone thousands of years ago would have believed.[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']What could you possibly mean do we have to follow a certain way? You must have some type of belief that if there is a god we have to follow rules. Is that your reasoning for not believing in a creator because you don't want to be bound by rules?[/quote]No, I'm saying that the rules would have to be communicated in some way. How do we know that god doesn't want me to kill you? How did you get from something like "god exists" to something like "god wants me to kill the fags" (just as an example).[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']If you designed something for a specific purpose would you want it to do otherwise? I think not. If we were supposed to act a certain way wouldn't it be some time of written or given law from the creator of how we are supposed to act?[/quote]If I designed something for a specific purpose and I happen to be an omnipotent deity, I don't think I really have to worry about things not going according to plan. I can literally just beam in information into people's heads, the only reason I can see for planting thousands of different conflicting accounts all claiming to be my divine word is if I wanted to **** with them.As for written or oral law, how exactly did you go from "god exists" to "this specific set of scriptures is the one true account of god's will unlike all those others that are obviously fake".[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']Of course you wouldn't see the evidence because you don't believe something doesn't exist. Maybe you will realize the when you think about things like, how the sun is placed perfectly where we all can't freeze or burn to death. No one can ever have that thought or idea because as you stated we investigate to find answers which means we lack knowledge. Ergo it is impossible for there not to be someone beyond us human life forms to create life or everything for that matter.[/quote]There's an entire band of space where life is possible, Venus or Mars could both have developed life (as we know it) if they had been slightly different, Venus developed an atmosphere that initiated a positive feedback loop on itself and Mars is too small to hold its atmosphere. As for being "placed perfectly" you're try to apply the anthropic principle and looking at things backwards. I used this example in another thread here so I'll just repeat it.[quote name='myself]Let me put it this way. If you were suddenly to be dropped into the depths of the ocean next to a deep sea hydrothermal vent' date=' you would alternately freeze to death or be burned to death by the steam from the vents, all while having no air and being crushed into a tiny cube by the water pressure. However, even in such an environment there is life. If the entire Earth were like that, would you use that as evidence for god? My point is, there is still life down there deep in the ocean, but if you bring it up to the surface it would die just as quickly as you would down there.[/quote']The life on Earth (in its various environments) evolved to fit there, it wasn't like the human physiology is something special that some sort of creator had to have and then he tailored an entire planet for us. If that were the case, there would be far more environments open to us.[quote name='Grey Matter' timestamp='1315897175' post='4970811']I mean honestly can you proof that such a thing or person doesn't exist? I really don't understand your "belief and action" concept you keep bringing up.[/quote]I don't have to prove anything, I just have to demonstrate which belief is more reasonable and then act according to that."Belief and action" is basically about "thought crimes". Belief is something completely subjective, I can say that I believe there is nothing under my bed and there's nothing you can do about it, my belief is my own. The only way you can appeal to me is along common beliefs. Lets say I also believe in being "reasonable" however that's defined, you can then appeal to my reason to try to convince me that there's something under the bed. You don't seem to be doing that because you are conflating belief with some sort of objective knowledge of things, saying that I don't have knowledge of what is or isn't under my bed. I'm saying that that doesn't matter, what matters is that I must believe something (either there is or there isn't a god) and then act that way. I act as if there is no god because that is my belief on the matter, and I believe that because I don't have evidence for the existence of god.The last part (regarding lack of evidence) is pretty standard by the way. Everyday I must act as if there either is or is not a monster under my bed (framing it in this way makes it a binary choice, I must believe one of these, even if it's only implicitly), which do you think I believe?

[Shai]

All you have been doing up until now is prove that you haven't searched to prove there isn't a god. You can't say you don't to prove it, what your point of commenting if your don't have any backing in your belief like others do? Like the scientist who studied the earth, space, and life like I said before did believe in god to the grave.You just proved my point just because you showed me that static doesn't mean that my statement was not true, http://www.godandsci...iencefaith.html and as just as you tried to counter my whole thought of their being a creator, doesn't mean my statement doesn't mean it isn't true either. My proof is your existence. Our existence. You can't tell me how we came to be, or even why we still exist.Like I said Atheism is nothing more than mere ignorance. Why? because they lack knowledge of god or the creator.I know there is a creator of us all because I can't even to begin to wonder where did the sense of right and wrong come from, of how we even exist. How did we come into being? You'd beam that information to us if you were a deity, yea that's the way you as a human would do. If you can't prove that something can't exist without evidence then there is no point of continuing this conversation, because your belief of being an Atheist is depending on it, because what you are saying is your reasoning of being one is because you don't have evidence, which is your evidence of a creator not existing, but me the opposing side, claims that there is evidence something visible to prove our case.So in theory your saying:If things that are in your room are knocked over and you weren't the cause of it you will automatically deduce that someone was there. Well lets say around that time there was a violent wind or little earthquake between that time period and this possibility has now arisen that there couldn't be someone in your room. However your neighbor did see someone in your room. Now the possibility of someone in your room grows right? You might come up with an inquiry that what if the earthquake made still made the mess, though your neighbor heard something crash which caused them to look out side toward your room. The only people who would know is the so called person in your house and the neighbor.Your evidence is the earth quake which is a fact because it happened you felt it and that you didn't see the scenario that your neighbor saw.

Edited by Grey Matter, 15 September 2011 - 12:57 AM.

[38542788]

You mind quoting specific sections of my post if you reply? It makes it a lot easier to see what you're actually responding to, it's just a bit of copy/paste.

All you have been doing up until now is prove that you haven't searched to prove there isn't a god. You can't say you don't to prove it, what your point of commenting if your don't have any backing in your belief like others do? Like the scientist who studied the earth, space, and life like I said before did believe in god to the grave.

I never said that I don't have any evidence for my beliefs, I just didn't conflate that with some sort of absolute knowledge of things.I don't have to prove to you that there isn't anything under my bed. It's enough to say that from my previous experiences there is no evidence of anything under my bed and I'm going to continue acting as if that's true (for example, I'm not going to go checking under it for dead bodies every night).I can also say that from my previous experiences there is no evidence of god and I will also continue acting that way (for example, I'm not going to follow any sort of scripture telling me to stone the gays or whatever).As for various scientists who believe in god, what does that matter? They aren't me, and their beliefs are not mine either. They certainly don't have access to some sort absolute knowledge of the universe that no one else is privy to, whatever they discovered is systematic and can be shared and tested.

You just proved my point just because you showed me that static doesn't mean that my statement was not true, http://www.godandsci...iencefaith.html and as just as you tried to counter my whole thought of their being a creator, doesn't mean my statement doesn't mean it isn't true either. My proof is your existence. Our existence. You can't tell me how we came to be, or even why we still exist.

Point 1, You just posted from a site that is specifically about Christian apologetics, contrast this my poll from the journal nature.Point 2, None of the scientists listed were born within the last century, when atheism has become somewhat more accepted. Of the three that died within the 20th century, the youngest, Einstein, was more of a deist (your own link said that he didn't believe in a personal god).Point 3, A list of names is not systematic and does not constitute evidence, I can list off eleven famous atheist scientists, that doesn't actually mean anything. Even the poll that I last posted can only constitute evidence if you assume that scientists are more trust worthy or hold more rigorous beliefs. You do seem to view "scientists" as sources of authority so I posted the poll, I'd really rather not have to resort to appeal to authority though.

and as just as you tried to counter my whole thought of their being a creator, doesn't mean my statement doesn't mean it isn't true either. My proof is your existence. Our existence. You can't tell me how we came to be, or even why we still exist.

The non-existence of an answer does not constitute evidence for god. A couple of hundred years ago, no one could have told you what the hell lightening strikes were. That doesn't mean sky god Zeus/Odin or whoever is out there throwing down thunderbolts.I don't know what you mean here by "existence". Are you saying that for any person as long as they're alive, the existence of god is self evident?I think it's pretty obvious that this isn't true. During the more recent portions of human history, there have been societies where secularism has become the norm, even to the point that religious belief have become almost completely marginalized. I haven't observed the children in these societies somehow getting the idea the world just have to have been created by some sort of supernatural deity. I would know since I was one of those children, I didn't even have an idea of what an omnipotent god would be until I came to the US and went to church.

Like I said Atheism is nothing more than mere ignorance. Why? because they lack knowledge of god or the creator.

If that's all we're comparing here, then I lack nothing that you have.Please, tell me what it is that you know that is so self evident.

I know there is a creator of us all because I can't even to begin to wonder where did the sense of right and wrong come from, of how we even exist. How did we come into being? You'd beam that information to us if you were a deity, yea that's the way you as a human would do.

"Right and wrong" such as it is, is very simple. Evolution codes in certain behavior, we don't even have to look at people to see this. Social animals can distinguish family members from others, they will help family and clan over strangers of the same species. Even predators don't engage in cannibalism because that's pretty much the best way to get a fatal disease. If you compare us to some more advanced animals it's even clearer, various primates have social hierarchies, they mourn the deaths of friends and family, and they can calculate the costs of things like fighting vs. submitting when conflicting with each other.

If you can't prove that something can't exist without evidence then there is no point of continuing this conversation, because your belief of being an Atheist is depending on it, because what you are saying is your reasoning of being one is because you don't have evidence, which is your evidence of a creator not existing, but me the opposing side, claims that there is evidence something visible to prove our case.

But you haven't posted any such evidence. I'm just saying that the default state is no, just like the default state of "dead bodies under my bed" is no.You seem to be saying something along the lines of:If GOD EXISTS, then the world will be like THIS.But you haven't really defined what THIS is (in fact you haven't even identified what god is yet since I don't recall you mentioning your own personal religion).I don't see how things will be different if god doesn't exist, the world is as it is because previous events caused it to be as it is now, ad infinitum.

So in theory your saying:If things that are in your room are knocked over and you weren't the cause of it you will automatically deduce that someone was there. Well lets say around that time there was a violent wind or little earthquake between that time period and this possibility has now arisen that there couldn't be someone in your room. However your neighbor did see someone in your room. Now the possibility of someone in your room grows right? You might come up with an inquiry that what if the earthquake made still made the mess, though your neighbor heard something crash which caused them to look out side toward your room. The only people who would know is the so called person in your house and the neighbor.Your evidence is the earth quake which is a fact because it happened you felt it and that you didn't see the scenario that your neighbor saw.

If, from my previous experience I find my neighbor to be trustworthy, then I would take what he or she said into account.This only matters in regards to future events though, I don't really care whether someone moved stuff around in my room or an Earthquake did it if it only happened once in my life. If it's a more important event like a murder, I would simply investigate it more carefully, dusting for fingerprints and cross examining the witness for example. I would still favor physical evidence though, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable due to the nature of human memory.Still, it only matters if it repeats enough to be a problem (either the Earthquake or the stranger rummaging around).To apply this argument to god, let's say that a particular scripture claims that god destroyed a city and turned its inhabitants to salt for whatever reason. I can either choose to believe in the scripture or not. It only really matters though if the scenario in question is repeatable, I don't think anyone claimed to have seen god smiting people to death for hundreds if not thousands of years, so why should I worry about it?Or to put it even closer to the "neighbor" analogy, why haven't I personally seen a prophet of god, when they seem to have been all over the place thousands of years ago telling people what god said? Or are you saying that they are in fact still around and I should have been listening to Joseph Smith or whoever?

Edited by 38542788, 22 September 2011 - 03:50 AM.

[38542788]

Though some beliefs might make you question a persons sanity (for example, if I believed that it was gods will that I bombed some country, you might want to lock me up), when it comes to a topic such as this, where there is no hard evidence to support either side, it all comes down to what the individual believes.

There is evidence, I was just pointing out that even with evidence we can really only arrive at beliefs. To continue with the "under the bed" analogy he brought up earlier, I can always choose to disbelieve my eyes and claim there's an ax-murderer under my bed, it's just that most other people will happen to think I'm crazy and lock me up, we just haven't gotten to that point yet with people claiming that there's a sky fairy that cares about whether they masturbated last night.

Actually, after looking back through the thread, I realise the original question was 'what are the pros and cons of being an atheist', and somehow the debate has evolved into one of belief. Personally, I believe that the pros and cons of being an atheist depend purely on how your beliefs affect the way you live your life. For me, I don't see many cons (besides the inexplicable urge to argue with people who believe in a god, which could get me into trouble. I'm trying to be more accepting), though I do occasionally wonder if there *is* anything after death.

My first post in this thread pointed out that the price of religious belief is adherence to dogma that would contradict rational thought. I mentioned things like tithing, hating on abortion and homosexuals, or sacrificing the hearts of my enemies as things I don't have to do as an atheist. It did sort of get off topic though, the thread on the existence of god is quite a bit down the page.

Also, 38542788, just out of curiosity, I was wondering where you grew up. From what you said, it sounds as if your community was one of atheists, and I can't think of anywhere such a community might exist (except perhaps somewhere in Russia).

I was born in China, which had a pretty weak and fragmented religious history even before communism. If I recall correctly the Orthodox Church has managed to recover in Russia, in contrast taoism is pretty much a dead religion and Buddhism doesn't really have any large scale organization in China. There are specific ethnic groups with coherent religious organizations, but the majority of the country is secular because there's really nothing else left.

[Yuto]

If you are an atheist, then you have no one to thank for the beautiful world we live in.

You are probably right, however i must say what would you call someone who is neither atheist nor agnostic and believes in a higher power...however doesn't agree with it or simply hates God, what would you call someone like me?