CC Atheists - what do you think of them?

[negoeien]

lol it's about religion or the lack of religion.
It's just a bunch of guys who believe theirselves and try to convince others.
That will just not happen and the same arguments will come up and up again like bugs in summertime.
I for instance belive in Truth as an idea not in the general way of truth but something different.
I know in here we face different truths for different people, which both are correct.
I just belive in between there, there is a universal general truth that we humans are unable to grasp.
But yet I found this thread very amusing .

[Snorri1234]

I like most of the atheists here. And most of the theists.

QFT it's been quite a fun war of words. I would be very much surprised if anything I posted actually changed anyone's opinions.

On certain things, not my disbelief though.

[Neoteny]

I'd like to know the main arguments for non-atheists.

Psst... theists...

and this is why we're being viewed as either arrogant or childish

I'm just trying to help a guy out. I think the antagonistic comments are generally the kinds of things interpreted as childish.

[CoffeeCream]

Actually I think the notion that most scientists are athiests is a common myth. Some scientists are religious and some are not and I would suspect that the exact percentage would fall within the same parameters as every other group of similiar social backgrounds and education. Then again it is important to remember that even scientists are human. One of the biggest obstacles to scientific progress is ironically the scientific community itself.

Yes, this was addressed in a movie I went to go see recently called EXPELLED. It was very interesting at the end when Richard Dawkins got flustered with Ben Stein's interview. Atheists and evolutionists hold to their worldview just as religiously as anybody else. And boy do they get upset when it's questioned!

[CrazyAnglican]

I think anybody would get that way when you get to his core values though. It's human nature.

[Neoteny]

Actually I think the notion that most scientists are athiests is a common myth. Some scientists are religious and some are not and I would suspect that the exact percentage would fall within the same parameters as every other group of similiar social backgrounds and education. Then again it is important to remember that even scientists are human. One of the biggest obstacles to scientific progress is ironically the scientific community itself.

Yes, this was addressed in a movie I went to go see recently called EXPELLED. It was very interesting at the end when Richard Dawkins got flustered with Ben Stein's interview. Atheists and evolutionists hold to their worldview just as religiously as anybody else. And boy do they get upset when it's questioned!

Ironically, it wasn't Ben Stein doing the interview. Nobody had the balls to be up front to the atheists about the basis of the movie. I find that particularly interesting.

[john9blue]

I like most of the atheists here. And most of the theists.

QFT it's been quite a fun war of words. I would be very much surprised if anything I posted actually changed anyone's opinions.

On certain things, not my disbelief though.

He's right, most of what's said here is random chatter, pointless banter, and argument for the sake of argument. Otherwise, nobody would bother posting.

[protectedbygold]

well i suppose i would simply operate from a different set of assumptions. I tend to think that it makes the most sense, in as far as we are being intellectually honest to not apply different standards to different sides of each position. Personally ive never been one to make believers attempt to prove that God exist to me at least, because that would be applying a different standard than i follow. Not everyone feels that way of course, but i suppose i think when you are looking at an issue with different positions, intellectual balance should be desirable.

If that's your way of dealing with how you view the world then that's cool. I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm just saying that it's illogical to rule out his existence. Yes, I do tend to agree with my agnostic friend. I personally would like to think there's a loving God out there but I have never experienced anything indicating his presence so I have to think that there is no such being. Just don't give me this intellectual balance stuff though. We all have assumptions and we tend to have biases when we interpret things so that they reinforce those assumptions.

As far as the statement in red, i think the fact that i dont believe in God as an absolute doesnt invalidate that statement.

Nobody can make the statement unless they have absolute or unlimited knowledge.

If you take some of the mindset from the paragraph above, you should be required to have limitless knowledge in order to believe in God if your going to require non-beilevers to have that as a minimum for not believing in God.

I don't agree. You don't need unlimited knowledge in order to believe in God. You would just need to be able to have enough knowledge to comprehend what he is. You're not being asked to know everything about him, just enough to understand that he exists. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he exists. But I can't say 100% for sure that he doesn't.

I guess imo at least, your friends sentiment, which you seem to echo, reflect a bias and imbalance (especially in the non-debating setting which is what we originally started with) that i choose to try to avoid if possible.

Everyone has a bias when it comes to this subject. My friend does and so do I. Trying to claim that a bias is the equivalent of an imbalance is an indirect cheap shot. If you are trying to avoid debating this issue then don't initiate a conversation by quoting me.

[got tonkaed]

While i regret that i seem to have touched a nerve, im not exactly sure what your driving at. I, hopefully being one of the first to admit this, have biases that are reflections of my worldview, and religion touches into that ground as well. However i suppose in a tradition of statements without absolute knowledge (which i can only hope comes sometime after this point in life -as ive yet to obtain it yet) i believe there are biases which are worse than others. While admittedly it took me a while to realize a rather haphazard notion that you pointed out, you have yet to, in a number of posts between us acknowledge something that i think people on both sides of the belief/non-belief issue would admit...you wish to apply a standard to non-believers that is unequal, makes their position untenable and it would seem (though of course i couldnt be certain) allow you to justify disapproval in a reciprocal fashion toward their attitude against you. Of course the last part is perhaps a stretch, but you seem to have left yourself open to one.

Its hard to know how to progress, as you seem to have reached a point where you will not read what im writing. I will maintain that you can believe in something without having absolute knowledge. While this is an imperfect example at best, i feel i am able to make snap judgments about numerous things in my day to day world, without having complete knowledge of all the relevant background information, other potential causes/outcomes, and other possible alternatives. The fact of the matter is, we are beings which deal in terms of imperfect information as you have suggest, because we do not have perfect sets of knowledge. The fact that we are able to make any assertion about the world at all (correct or incorrect being irrelevant) suggests its possible to do so without perfect information. The fact that you can know even the most possible outcomes, as perhaps is the case in a game of chance, without being certain of the exact outcome, allows us to make decisions and hold stances, even without perfect knowledge.

Should you choose to maintain this line of thinking, its clear we wont be able to bridge much of a gap, though im not sure you are trying to do so. The stance you maintain is pretty biased, and someone seemingly petty in your response to other posts about the issue.

If your going to post and i find it relevant to remark about it, i might consider doing so. If your going to get emotional about it, i apologize as that wasnt my intent to provoke that type of response, and it would seem i have done so.

[The1exile]

Nobody can make the statement unless they have absolute or unlimited knowledge.

I disagree. I've heard very convincing arguments that reality as a whole doesn't exist. and that the universe merely projects itself into our perception depending on what we do (kinda like being in a constant dream, where nothing is real, it just creates the illusion that it is).

Now clearly, you'd probably think "well that's stupid, of course reality exists", but the actually more accurate answer is that while it's impossible to prove 100% that it actually exists and isn't a massive sensory illusion, all the evidence suggests it isn't that way.

Same thing applies to god (capital G or otherwise). Fairies at the bottom of the garden, the leprechaun in backglass' glove compartment, Esmerelda and keith, FSM, and the elephant in the next room are all considered ridiculous by the same logic.

(On a tangentially related note, I don't now if it's still up but I saw something interesting called "Am I Normal" on BBC that talks about popular acceptance of beliefs depending on how they're preached/followed, it might still be on the iplayer).

[Backglass]

I do not believe in Magical Mystery Sky Beings...or Sasquatch...or The Chupacabra...or Zues.

If that makes me Childish & Arrogant in the eyes of thiests, so be it. I could really care less what those who DO believe in such magical creatures think of me, just as I don't care what the crazy man in the subway yelling at me to "repent" thinks of me either.

[heavycola]

I believe in a thing called love
I believe (when I fall in love with you it will be forever)
I believe in miracles. Where you from, you sexy thing?
I believe i can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I'm a believer

[Neoteny]

well i suppose i would simply operate from a different set of assumptions. I tend to think that it makes the most sense, in as far as we are being intellectually honest to not apply different standards to different sides of each position. Personally ive never been one to make believers attempt to prove that God exist to me at least, because that would be applying a different standard than i follow. Not everyone feels that way of course, but i suppose i think when you are looking at an issue with different positions, intellectual balance should be desirable.

If that's your way of dealing with how you view the world then that's cool. I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm just saying that it's illogical to rule out his existence. Yes, I do tend to agree with my agnostic friend. I personally would like to think there's a loving God out there but I have never experienced anything indicating his presence so I have to think that there is no such being. Just don't give me this intellectual balance stuff though. We all have assumptions and we tend to have biases when we interpret things so that they reinforce those assumptions.

As far as the statement in red, i think the fact that i dont believe in God as an absolute doesnt invalidate that statement.

Nobody can make the statement unless they have absolute or unlimited knowledge.

If you take some of the mindset from the paragraph above, you should be required to have limitless knowledge in order to believe in God if your going to require non-beilevers to have that as a minimum for not believing in God.

I don't agree. You don't need unlimited knowledge in order to believe in God. You would just need to be able to have enough knowledge to comprehend what he is. You're not being asked to know everything about him, just enough to understand that he exists. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he exists. But I can't say 100% for sure that he doesn't.

I guess imo at least, your friends sentiment, which you seem to echo, reflect a bias and imbalance (especially in the non-debating setting which is what we originally started with) that i choose to try to avoid if possible.

Everyone has a bias when it comes to this subject. My friend does and so do I. Trying to claim that a bias is the equivalent of an imbalance is an indirect cheap shot. If you are trying to avoid debating this issue then don't initiate a conversation by quoting me.

"Everyone has an agenda. Except me."
-Michael Crighton

[mr. incrediball]

I'll just leave it in the hands of the people who come in here and read the Chatter Box Forum. Do the atheists here on conquer club make really good rationale arguments or are they just roaming around seeking childish arguments. My opinion is that they act like raving madmen and just ridicule anyone who believes in God. Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves. Maybe I'm wrong and there's no place for people to be talking about religion - Christian or otherwise. What do you think?

I'll run the poll for 90 days.

first off: i voted for every option on the poll.


second: sure, many athiests (including myself) can be childish, arrogent and rude, but the fact is: christians can be exactly the same. (i think everyone here remembers Jay_a2J and his "your refusal to believe in god makes me laugh" point of view)

I think your first problem was saying "are athiests bad people" like we're all the same. we're not. that's like me saying "all christians are deluded fools with their heads stuck so far up their own arses that they can't get a sensible idea through their heads".

your second problem was insulting us in the very same post where you make points about how nasty we "all" are.


in short, this thread is not endorsed in any way by the Incrediball corporation of Europe.

[The1exile]

I believe in a thing called love
I believe (when I fall in love with you it will be forever)
I believe in miracles. Where you from, you sexy thing?
I believe i can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I'm a believer

I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman,
'Cause all I wanna do is...

[heavycola]

I believe in a thing called love
I believe (when I fall in love with you it will be forever)
I believe in miracles. Where you from, you sexy thing?
I believe i can fly
I believe I can touch the sky
I'm a believer

I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman,
'Cause all I wanna do is...

[CoffeeCream]

Ironically, it wasn't Ben Stein doing the interview. Nobody had the balls to be up front to the atheists about the basis of the movie. I find that particularly interesting.

That just simply isn't true, Neotony. Both men were both sitting next to each other during the interview. It was plain to anyone who actually saw the movie.

[Neoteny]

Ironically, it wasn't Ben Stein doing the interview. Nobody had the balls to be up front to the atheists about the basis of the movie. I find that particularly interesting.

That just simply isn't true, Neotony. Both men were both sitting next to each other during the interview. It was plain to anyone who actually saw the movie.

Oops, you're right. I didn't realize there was a second interview. My bad.

EDIT: Actually, upon further review, I may have had that wrong too. They were under false pretenses, but I can't say that I know much about the Dawkins interview. My bad again.

[CoffeeCream]

Oops, you're right. I didn't realize there was a second interview. My bad.

EDIT: Actually, upon further review, I may have had that wrong too. They were under false pretenses, but I can't say that I know much about the Dawkins interview. My bad again.

As punishment you have to Rickroll yourself while watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off

[got tonkaed]

Oops, you're right. I didn't realize there was a second interview. My bad.

EDIT: Actually, upon further review, I may have had that wrong too. They were under false pretenses, but I can't say that I know much about the Dawkins interview. My bad again.

As punishment you have to Rickroll yourself while watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off

how on earth could watching that video ever be understood as a punishment...never understood really.

[Neoteny]

Oops, you're right. I didn't realize there was a second interview. My bad.

EDIT: Actually, upon further review, I may have had that wrong too. They were under false pretenses, but I can't say that I know much about the Dawkins interview. My bad again.

As punishment you have to Rickroll yourself while watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I'll accept the rickroll but the Stein treatment is too much.

[Anarkistsdream]

Oops, you're right. I didn't realize there was a second interview. My bad.

EDIT: Actually, upon further review, I may have had that wrong too. They were under false pretenses, but I can't say that I know much about the Dawkins interview. My bad again.

As punishment you have to Rickroll yourself while watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I'll accept the rickroll but the Stein treatment is too much.

Bueller...? Bueller?

[Frigidus]

[MeDeFe]

Who the f*ck is Ferris Bueller?

[InkL0sed]

Who the f*ck is Ferris Bueller?

The main character in Ferris Bueller's Day Off...