Thread: If athiests ruled the world

I made that post in a hurry, re reading it I see that the point which I was trying to make was well and truely lost by the incoherant manner in which it was framed. I shall try better this time.

What I do want to make clear is that I do think religion is stupid and has lost its relevance, there are much better ways of understanding ourselves and our world.

Mr Troy hit on what I was aiming to say. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics here, but I think it is safe to say that there are 2 kinds of atheist, ones who have given proper thought to the notion of god, who may have read up on famous atheist works which challenge the notion, read up on different branches of science and then came to conclude that they don't believe there is a god as the evidence against is too strong. They are able to give good reasoning to back up their atheism when needed and give coherant, reasoned criticisms of god and religion (which is fine).

And there are those who don't think there is one, but arrived at this conclusion by different means. Whilst less thoughtful, I would first like to say that it doesn't imply hatred. The notion of an invisible man in the sky, and blind faith in the Bible, which is quite clearly a book of myths totally staggers me and I find it's stupidity glaringly obvious. This group generally cannot give the same arguments as the first, their arguments tend to be "lol godfag" or something like that. Whilst crude, and something I personally try to avoid (if I am being serious), it doesn't imply hatred (I doubt few, if any of these guys have murdered a religious person for their faith, the opposite cannot be said however) and it doesn't always carry with it a notion of "im clevr".

Yes, there are some people who criticise religion for being stupid and then try to claim that therefore they must be clever, we all know it doesn't work like that. I want to make it clear that you can still make mindless digs at god without adopting this attitude, and that in my mind is ok too.

Since when did criticism of religion have to be from a point of scientific understanding? Alot of people here seem to think that if you wish to have a go at god, you better be able to justify it. Why? To make it clear, this isn't the same as "lol stupid christians, I therefore am clever by virtue of mockin u", the christian god and myths quite clearly are not true, the nonsense of it all is striking, so if people want to take midnless digs at it, go ahead.

Again to make it clear, I don't like it when people take digs, then try to imply it gives them intelligence, or try to mask themselves as the first kind of atheist, as I don't believe the deserve to. One of the other video's about telling christian boys how to avoid the urge, whilst I didn't find it amusing, I have no issue that the guy chose to make it.

Let me be clear with what I mean with "dig", as judging by some posts it would seem people have taken this to mean almost anything. I mean stuff like silly youtube video's mocking god. Or someone making a thread on an internet forum. I am not talking about murdering people, or going to faith schools and shouting at the kids. These aren't the same, and the latter is not what I meant.

Many of you are according far too much respect to religion.

Again, I sense I am having trouble expressing my point....look at it this way, let us say personX believes in the tooth fairy. PersonX is 40 years old. What alot of you guys are saying is that to criticise him for this belief, you must provide sound reasoning as to why this is wrong, because the blatent stupidity of the situation is not enough. Thats not to say he should be criticised, in person at least, I wouldn't do that for the same reason I never talk about religion with my religious friends, I don't wish to offend them. But if I were to criticise it, surely the blatent stupidity of this notion would be strong enough cause. And yes, I brought religion down to the level of the tooth fairy, as in my opinion they are very alike in essence, wishful belief in a fantasy. Except one is far less prevelant and dangerous.

Originally Posted by gismo

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics here, but I think it is safe to say that there are 2 kinds of atheist, ones who have given proper thought to the notion of god, who may have read up on famous atheist works which challenge the notion, read up on different branches of science and then came to conclude that they don't believe there is a god as the evidence against is too strong.

There is no way that reading up on various scientific topics could ever provide you with any evidence against the existence of a god. I say this as an atheist and someone spends a lot of free time reading scientific literature.

Originally Posted by gismo

the christian god and myths quite clearly are not true, the nonsense of it all is striking, so if people want to take midnless digs at it, go ahead.

That is not a strong argument.

It isn't that everyone here is according respect to religion as much as it is the people here respecting the reasonable members of religion on the virtue that they are human beings and their belief systems are important to them. Running around saying, "god isn't real, you guys are retarded because of what you believe, herfnesnerfnesnu," is just discourteous, whether your reasoning is justified or not and whether you are saying it just to harass them or you are saying it from a place of superiority. It isn't an issue of what you believe, it is an issue of being a considerate person.

There is nothing wrong with expressing dissension reasonably, but there is no need to be an ass about it (unless they are particularly asking for it like the people who post on those fundamentalist forums).

Originally Posted by gismo

And there are those who don't think there is one, but arrived at this conclusion by different means. Whilst less thoughtful, I would first like to say that it doesn't imply hatred. The notion of an invisible man in the sky, and blind faith in the Bible, which is quite clearly a book of myths totally staggers me and I find it's stupidity glaringly obvious. This group generally cannot give the same arguments as the first, their arguments tend to be "lol godfag" or something like that. Whilst crude, and something I personally try to avoid (if I am being serious), it doesn't imply hatred (I doubt few, if any of these guys have murdered a religious person for their faith, the opposite cannot be said however) and it doesn't always carry with it a notion of "im clevr".

He does have a point. I've been an atheist since I was about 7. Not because I saw any flaws in the bible or because I read up on evolution or because I understood the inherent flaws in Pascal's Wager. It was more that I simply didn't see any necessity in believing in a God (I suppose I was more of an Agnostic). As I grew up the things I learnt seemed to only confirm this more until I decided to drop the obnoxious 'Agnostic' label and call myself an atheist. This is because I don't believe there is a God, simple as.

There's been a lot of talk in the media over here about the importance of respecting people's beliefs. Surely that's just wrong. I respect the right to hold whatever beliefs you so choose but if I think it's stupid then I believe that I should have the right to say so. That's all that's gone on so far in this thread (in regards to Gismo's posts) and I don't entirely understand why everyone's joining the 'lolidiot' bandwagon other than maybe because his contribution was poorly worded and slightly brassy.

Originally Posted by Syme

There is no way that reading up on various scientific topics could ever provide you with any evidence against the existence of a god. I say this as an atheist and someone spends a lot of free time reading scientific literature.

This is true but it can certainly spark the way towards atheistic beliefs. Of course it's not going to provide you with evidence against a higher power but that's only because such belief is predicated entirely on a lack of evidence (see: faith). This argument isn't so black and white.

Originally Posted by simonj

This is true but it can certainly spark the way towards atheistic beliefs. Of course it's not going to provide you with evidence against a higher power but that's only because such belief is predicated entirely on a lack of evidence (see: faith). This argument isn't so black and white.

Even if belief in a higher being wasn't predicated entirely on a lack of evidence, science would still be incapable of providing evidence against it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand science or how it works. I'm not sure what you mean by "this argument isn't so black and white". The only thing I'm saying in black-and-white terms is that science is incapable of providing evidence against the existence of supernatural entities. That's just a fact.

Incidentally, I came about my atheism the same way you did: When I was about 8 years old, I said to myself, "Wait a minute... I don't have any evidence that this guy exists. Generally speaking, I don't believe things unless I have a reason to believe them. So why is God different?"

Originally Posted by Syme

Even if belief in a higher being wasn't predicated entirely on a lack of evidence, science would still be incapable of providing evidence against it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand science or how it works. I'm not sure what you mean by "this argument isn't so black and white". The only thing I'm saying in black-and-white terms is that science is incapable of providing evidence against the existence of supernatural entities. That's just a fact.

Incidentally, I came about my atheism the same way you did: When I was about 8 years old, I said to myself, "Wait a minute... I don't have any evidence that this guy exists. Generally speaking, I don't believe things unless I have a reason to believe them. So why is God different?"

Ok, we're saying the same things here, just in two misunderstood ways so let's just disagree to agree.