Conquer Club

protectedbygold wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:I guess i just reject the assertion that you need to have unlimited knowledge to believe in anything in particular.

Of course not, you misunderstood the point he was making. You can believe in anything you want. Nobody can stop you. What he was saying is you can't absolutely rule out the existence of anything unless you have unlimited knowledge of the universe, or some shit like that man - it was awhile ago when he was talking to me about it.

I think theres a disconnect then between believing in anything. If you require some type of absolute in order to base any set of beliefs, as no such standard exists, you run into real problems in believing in a lot of things. And then once you require a set of absolutes for any particular belief, you need to therefore create a spectrum of relations between belief and knowledge, and without a frame of reference to what absolute knowledge is (which you cant have without absolute knowledge) you cant create an honest spectrum.

In essence, i still reject his point.

There should be a clan called CC atheists. And if there already is lemme know, I wanna join.

Interesting that 15 people voted childish but not one,except possibly the OP , could explain why..........

Arrogant describes alot of them. I met enough of them to know a good number of them thought that they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Also helps that I was one, so I can see what is happening.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Arrogant describes alot of them. I met enough of them to know a good number of them thought that they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Also helps that I was one, so I can see what is happening.

The greatest thing since sliced bread? We beat sliced bread by a huge margin, atheism is the greatest thing since the original knife for slicing bread. Oh and we're very modest, too, not arrogant at all as should be obvious to anyone with half a brain or more.

/end irony

I guess not more or less arrogant than any other arbitrarily selected group is on average.

There are atheists on CC? But war, conquering, world domination... these are the pastimes of the pious so no atheists here I assume.

Compared to other forums they seem to be about the average. Arrogant, rude and unreasonable, prone to whip out insults and expouse an elitist attitude towards their own preceived superior position.

The irony is that it is not my religious side that gets annoyed (the secular Franciscan in me jumps for joy at the sight of "true joy") but the scientific side in me that boils with rage. This is because at the heart of their argument is a scientific fallacy that was strongly proposed in the 19th century and most scientists laugh at today; the notion that we can understand everything there is to know about the universe. It was often coupled with the notion that we have already invented everything that is important in the universe.

The irony is even more profound when you realize they are not really athiests in the first place. Their "god" is what they preceive (falsely) science to be, just as the mob of the French Revolution raised "reason" as their goddess. To that extent they are as damgerous as any religious fundie out there, and as about as impossible to reason with as well.

I'd rather talk to an agnostic.

I used to be conceited, but now I'm absolutely perfect.

tzor wrote:Compared to other forums they seem to be about the average. Arrogant, rude and unreasonable, prone to whip out insults and expouse an elitist attitude towards their own preceived superior position.

The irony is that it is not my religious side that gets annoyed (the secular Franciscan in me jumps for joy at the sight of "true joy") but the scientific side in me that boils with rage. This is because at the heart of their argument is a scientific fallacy that was strongly proposed in the 19th century and most scientists laugh at today; the notion that we can understand everything there is to know about the universe. It was often coupled with the notion that we have already invented everything that is important in the universe.

The irony is even more profound when you realize they are not really athiests in the first place. Their "god" is what they preceive (falsely) science to be, just as the mob of the French Revolution raised "reason" as their goddess. To that extent they are as damgerous as any religious fundie out there, and as about as impossible to reason with as well.

I'd rather talk to an agnostic.

This is a bit of a blanket approach to atheism. Its another convenient generalisation (which admittedly atheists are fond of when discussing believers) allowing you to quickly discount all atheists because they only believe science without really acknowledging that to not believe in something is not the same as to believe in something else. I don't believe in a God, but I certainly don't believe science has all the answers and you'll have never heard me argue there is a scientific reason not to believe in a God, because there isn't. There may not be a scientific reason to believe in God either but just because that is the case doesn't mean that all atheists are driven by that.

Its popular round here to talk about scientism in the sense that science is the athiests religion but that simply isn't the case. Science is just one of the myriad of tools we have to help understand our universe, some people are as equally deluded by science as by any religion but to say all athiests 'worship' science is like saying all religious people regardless of denomination worship Jesus.

Personally I think Thomas Paine alluded to the spirit of atheism most succintly for me way back in the eighteenth century when he said, "The world is my country, my religion is to do good" (which if I could be bothered I'd expand into a response to Widowmakers well rehearsed, certainly tired and frankly quite offensive suggestions that morality is the sole province of the pious but its been done before here, by me even, and I can't be bothered). In a more modern day sense my atheism is far more aligned to organisation such as the Humanist Society and Secular Organisation than any single minded pursuit of objective scientific reason. In the words of Bertrand Russell - "Remember your humanity and forget the rest".

EDIT: Oh and before anybody sees fit to mention it, yes, I know Thomas Paine wasn't an Atheist and was even the son of a quaker. So what, it doesn't stop him from neatly sound-biting it.

Bertros Bertros wrote:This is a bit of a blanket approach to atheism.

Ah but I wasn't talking about "athiests" in general as the subject is "CC Athiests," so I'm talking about the generally active posters for athiesm on this board and on others. Not all athiests are this way as the case as not all religious are fundies. Indeed there are "strong" athiests and "weak" athiests. In any situation the extreeme position and is the most arrogant and the most unreasonable and the one most likely to post on the internet.

Just to rehash terms.
Strong athiest: Logic proves god doesn't exist.
Weak athiest: One cannot prove god exists, so I choose to believe he(she) doesn't exist.
Agnostic: One cannot prove god exists. One cannot prove god doesn't exist. I don't care.

i am currently doing a physics course so i encounter atheists every day and am one myself. I think they are like the rest of the population some nice some pricks and everything in between, i don't think atheism is a defining characteristic really. I think the reason most scientists are slow to believe in god is that in science you are constantly asked to show proof to support your findings and of course there's no proof god exists ( there's no proof he foesn't either but that seems less important for some strange reason)

multiplayertim wrote:I think the reason most scientists are slow to believe in god is that in science you are constantly asked to show proof to support your findings and of course there's no proof god exists ( there's no proof he foesn't either but that seems less important for some strange reason)

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.

tzor wrote:

multiplayertim wrote:I think the reason most scientists are slow to believe in god is that in science you are constantly asked to show proof to support your findings and of course there's no proof god exists ( there's no proof he foesn't either but that seems less important for some strange reason)

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.

I have a friend who is a post graduate physics researcher with a PHD in lights and lenses at/from a top London University. He is the most strongly religious person I know and enjoys the happy clappy variety of worship rather than the more staid forms traditionally associated with the UK. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive and likewise a lack of belief in one does not therefore infer faith in the other. I'm not sure personally that I feel the majority of athiests posting here hold science as irrefutable proof of their correctness, most seem to be balanced in there approach to using science and philosophy to form a basis for their own spiritual platform in life rather than being deluded by the church of reason. To apply logic rather than faith to a decision on theism is very different from applying faith in science to a decision on theism.

tzor wrote:Just to rehash terms.
Strong athiest: Logic proves god doesn't exist.
Weak athiest: One cannot prove god exists, so I choose to believe he(she) doesn't exist.
Agnostic: One cannot prove god exists. One cannot prove god doesn't exist. I don't care.

I have never met a strong atheist, not here or in real life.

I can't believe that the most popular choice here is that it is childish to be an atheist. Wow... the closed-mindedness of some people on this website is staggering. Instead of just dismissing anti-religious views as childish, maybe people should actually open their minds to the different interpretations on how the world came to being. I think it is actually childish to just follow everything your family followed blindly and not actually come up with some own personally researched views on life and the world etc.

nagerous wrote:I can't believe that the most popular choice here is that it is childish to be an atheist. Wow... the closed-mindedness of some people on this website is staggering. Instead of just dismissing anti-religious views as childish, maybe people should actually open their minds to the different interpretations on how the world came to being. I think it is actually childish to just follow everything your family followed blindly and not actually come up with some own personally researched views on life and the world etc.

It puzzles me that so many atheists think that it is more closed-minded to believe in something than to not believe in something.

Although I am not one to generalize I will say a few things. Atheists tend to be smarter than the average person but many greatly exaggerate their intelligence and come across as elitist. It's really hard to be religious when one has the need to understand everything (that's why I am sort of agnostic myself); the key is accepting that there are things that one cannot understand. People have done this for years with stuff like thunderstorms and planets, but some things like the afterlife and the origin of the universe just can't be explained by science.

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

john9blue wrote:some things like the afterlife and the origin of the universe just can't be explained by science.

The day science explains the afterlife is the day i stop bombing abortion clinics.

Many atheists in here rock, as do quite a few of the bleeevuhs. It's the twats I can't stand.

DangerBoy wrote: Do the atheists here on conquer club make really good rationale arguments or are they just roaming around seeking childish arguments.

How about "NONE of the above... or ALL of the above?"

Within CC, as in the "real world", there are plenty of arrogant jerks of all creeds and beliefs and plenty of nice folks, also.

Add to this , that since CC is a more or less anonymous forum, there are plenty of "play actors" -- folks who take a position here, for fun, REGARDLESS of their real beliefs.

nagerous wrote:I can't believe that the most popular choice here is that it is childish to be an atheist. Wow... the closed-mindedness of some people on this website is staggering. Instead of just dismissing anti-religious views as childish, maybe people should actually open their minds to the different interpretations on how the world came to being. I think it is actually childish to just follow everything your family followed blindly and not actually come up with some own personally researched views on life and the world etc.

But I really can't see where people have been saying that it is "childish to be an athiest." I have seen a number of people claiming how childish to believe in a god however. Such people are themselves acting in an almost childish manner. That is what the poll is asking.

tzor wrote:I'd rather talk to an agnostic.

To parpahrase Richard Dawkins, I am agnostic about the existence of god in the same way i am agnostic about fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

heavycola wrote:

tzor wrote:I'd rather talk to an agnostic.

To parpahrase Richard Dawkins, I am agnostic about the existence of god in the same way i am agnostic about fairies living at the bottom of my garden. Agnosticism is the only rational position.

Quite. I think that the key to the athiest/agnostic similarities is that most athiests will provide certain scenarios in which they would alter their beliefs (heck, the ones that don't are being pretty damn hypocritical). Agnostics on the other hand either aren't sure about god's existence and qualities or have a very vague idea of them.

I suppose that agnosticism is indeed the "safer" position, but only in the same way that you aren't sure that gravity isn't just a series of coincidences. I don't think a lack of absolute knowledge is a good reason to postulate a theory, so I'm an athiest pending evidence indicating otherwise.

Yes: the question is not "is atheism childish?"
It's "are CC atheists who post a lot childish?".

Some often are, and although that didn't get my vote, I can see why people might vote for that.

Are CC's tub-thumping atheists more childish than their religious equivalents?
Does a lack of belief in an invisible creature living in the sky confer immaturity?

I refer the honourable gentleman to my answer of a few moments ago.

(nor was the question "are they "more childish than x".

Ok its a stupid question in the first place...