What if the argument is "at this point, belief in deities is irrational"?
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Agnostic, Religious or Atheist
- Thread starter draya the dark master
- Start date
- Status
What if the argument is "at this point, belief in deities is irrational"?
waffle_x_v
Fun stuff
Agnostic. Atheists are pricks. And religious people are... well, idk.
:|
Making generalizations like this is a terrible thing to do. Saying atheists are pricks is like saying black people steal cars. It just doesn't make sense. An atheist can be a prick, or they can be perfectly nice. Don't judge people in such big groups like that, seriously. There's really nothing in common between not believing in a God and being a jerk. If anything, you're the prick for making that assumption. Not trying to be insulting, just making a point.
On topic, I'm more agnostic than anything. Give me solid proof and I'll be inclined to believe in a god, but to be honest, God is just another part of a mythology to me in the same way the Greek gods are.
... as has been said on this thread before, most people who identify as "agnostic" ARE technically atheist since most lack belief in a deity. Can we remove the poll and change the title? It's misleading people into believing that there's a middle ground between "believing" and "not believing". This misunderstanding has always been a pet peeve of mine.
And sweeping generalizations like that don't help your case at all. It'd help if you were more specific about HOW you came to the conclusion that I am a prick.
You say 'typical' internet atheist, but I am curious, how sure can you be that your opinion is based on an accurate representation of the true internet atheist population? How many internet atheists have you actually interact with?
I would agree that some aspects of theology are outside the purview of science in that the scientific method, by definition, cannot be applied to the supernatural, but I find it strange and a little concerning that people will leave something as supposedly important as the destination of their soul up to personal experience or faith (especially with everything we have discovered and now know about how the brain works). Just look at the phenomenon of pareidolia:
[IMG200]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Eq_S1youDLc/S7t7qQzlIAI/AAAAAAAAAFg/JIZHUsSJhFI/s1600/091209-pareidolia-grilled-cheese.jpg[/IMG200][IMG200]http://thorgolucky.com/humor/pareidolia_tree.jpg[/IMG200]
UnovaMaster
Well-Known Member
If religious people are going to treat the Bible like their number one priorety, then yes, they are a complete and total idiot. Those who do this clearly can't think for themselves, but instead think for this/these so called god/gods. Perhaps these insecure people look to this apparent force for reassurance, but thumping a bible isn't the way to really find any of it.
Is that not an opinion? Is that not inconclusive? That was my point. A theist could literally just say "nah, it's rational and here's why: ...." to that and where did your argument go? Oh, back to why it's irrational. Therefore it goes in circles. This is due to it being an opinion based on little to no concrete fact.
The soul is transcendent of the body. It's not connected to the mind or anything else. Assuming it exists, of course.
But my point was directed solely towards the existence of God. Not religious doctrine as a whole. But then again, the Bible (Qur'an, Torah) is a religious manual and not a science/history book and anyone who's treating it as so is doing it wrong since the scientific revolution. So I suppose I'd have to say yes, my argument doesn't go for all parts of religion, but again, it was only directed towards the existence of God and anyone who isn't using the stories in the Bible, etc. as fables read for their message (like Aesop) is forcing ignorance on themself and not worth listening to anyway.
Last edited:
I wonder why Christians are the only ones to get love around here. Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. But this argument holds a valid point nonetheless.
What? No. Agnostic is the disagreement with religion but not a full rejection of the existence of a God/gods. It's the uncommitted "on the fence" belief.
Last edited:
Guys, guys, listen! I just had a startling thought!
Contrary to common misconception, atheists are not only black and white in belief. They come in as many forms and intensities of belief as theists of all religions do. To be considered an atheist, it's not strictly necessary to adhere yourself to "100% no possibility of a god!!!!!!!!!" There are, in fact, varying degrees of belief, just as there are in theistic religions.
hth
Contrary to common misconception, atheists are not only black and white in belief. They come in as many forms and intensities of belief as theists of all religions do. To be considered an atheist, it's not strictly necessary to adhere yourself to "100% no possibility of a god!!!!!!!!!" There are, in fact, varying degrees of belief, just as there are in theistic religions.
hth
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Really? I thought that people who believe might exist to any percentage are called agnostics. The word 'athiest' means someone who is not a theist, meaning 0% chance of believing in God.
This statement is ironic since all the Christians I talk to think that athiests are the only ones to get love around here. This suggests that both sides think of themeselves as the underdog and believe their opposition is ahead of them. The grass is always greener, right?
Last edited:
People still worship the Greek Gods, infact, most of Paganism (Hinduism included, even though it's not commonly grouped with it) worship the same Gods with different names and appearances, occasionally with slight differences due to location.
Personally, I'm confused as to why so many people in Europe and America follow a Middle-Eastern religion of some sorts (Judaism, Islam or Christianity), and it confuses me even more when these people who worship essentially the same God get into arguments, and even wars over it. If your following a slightly different branch of what is pretty much the same religion, why make a huge deal over tiny differences.
According to Google:
Irrational: "Not logical or reasonable."
Belief without examinable evidence is, by definition, irrational.
Babies are "not a theist". However, they don't have a 0% chance of believing in God. "Lack/rejection of belief in something" most certainly does not equal "belief that the opposite is true".
What must be understood is that most atheists treat the existence of a deity like they treat any other thing they're skeptical about. Skeptics, of course, don't have a 0% chance of believing in anything they're skeptical about. They just require examinable evidence before they start believing in it.
People who think God might exist but don't currently hold a belief that God DOES exist are analogous to people who think my hair might be blonde, but don't currently hold a belief that my hair IS blonde.. They're atheists. They're also agnostic because they don't claim to be able to know.
I don't know how many times I can link this image.
Last edited:
Babies do not have the capacity to think either way until the belief of theism (or atheism) is instilled on them by parents or their environment. The word atheism literally means "not theist" as it has the prefix -a, meaning not, and -theist, meaning belief in one or more supreme beings. If they do question it, in any way, then they are agnostic atheists, as your chart explains.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
I misspoke - they believe in God to a 0% degree. Not that they don't have a chance to believe in God. Piplup911 pretty much said it.
You're missing a small technical detail here: when you say that "atheist" means "person who is not a theist", by default you are including babies, as babies are "people who are not theists".
In fact, there is a term for these kinds of atheists. We call them Implicit atheists. The opposite, "explicit" atheists are the skeptical kind.
waffle_x_v
Fun stuff
Agnostic means you don't know. I'm not ignorant of my religious standpoint, don't point that out for me. Were my conclusion is derived from? Mostly experience. Atheists come off as butt hurt individuals who think they're better than everyone else. I should'v said most not all. Sorry about that. I don't mean to generalize. It's just most atheists I've met tend to be aggressive and trod all over someone else's beliefs, which I find aggravating. I have met gregarious atheists however, but they tend to be a minority.
I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life, but don't be a hypocrite. Unless you know the full reasoning behind someone's speech, you don't have any other right making inane presumptions. P.S. you sound more like an atheist based off of your perspective. Please clean up the discrepancy between your argument, ty.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I asked you "what color is my hair?"
and you said "I don't know"
You still lack the belief that my hair is blonde. As in, you are not actively believing that my hair is blonde.
You don't know and you don't believe. You're an "agnostic atheist". There's no "middle ground" between atheism and theism, there are just different kinds of atheism and theism.
From experience, significant groups from both sides think this way.
I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life, but don't be a hypocrite. Unless you know the full reasoning behind someone's speech, you don't have any other right making inane presumptions. P.S. you sound more like an atheist based off of your perspective. Please clean up the discrepancy between your argument, ty.
You know you just responded with NO reasoning, right? You just said "you're wrong" in more words, in a generic speech of "you're not allowed to argue against me because its my opinion." Maybe the reason atheists are pricks to you is that you make them so, hmm? Clean up the discrepancy in your own arguments first. If I sound like a prick, its because of your factless posting. And there was no hypocrisy involved; you made generalizations, he didn't.
And he was right, at least in my opinion. Making generalizations is one of the worst ways to support yourself in an argument. "Atheists are pricks" is a lot different than "a number of atheists I have met are pricks" or "I think atheists are pricks." I mean, what am I going to help in a debate if I say "Christians are pricks"? I very well can't because I have some devout friends, but if I were to, how is that going to help?
- Status