-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Irks You Most About Atheists, Agnostics, And Non-Believers?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
False Dichotomy logical fallacy.
3 - created by Universe Creating Pixies
4 - created by Superboy, as a Class Science Project
5 - created as an accidental by-product of a Super Advanced race, studying Cosmic Big Bangs
6 - created as an interface between two (or more) other Universes and their interaction via gravity interference
7 -
That's just off the top of my head...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I would never make such a claim-- especially considering that some Theists claim that the only reason they are not out running amok, raping, murdering and worse-- is their very real fear of a Cosmic Big Brother's disapproval.
Those people frighten me, actually--- I would never venture to try to get them away from, what seems to be, the only thing keeping them from becoming a Super Villain or something.
Liu
Well-Known Member
I agree - the atheists I was referring to might make actually that one exception for when religion can be beneficial, namely to keep people in line who are too dependent on the moral guidelines of their religion. Not really a benefit, though, as it's likely the religion itself which made them have that dangerous mindset.
The benefits of religion I was thinking of were different ones.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. And I do well understand some of the benefits of belief in a Benevolent Cosmic Super Power who watches over us lowly humans.
Let me edit this, before posting. I'm moving the Cosmic Events to the end.
A primary benefit of belief in god? Would be to help alleviate the unanswered question: What Happens To Self, when we Die?
Religions all promise, one way or another, that Death isn't the end of Self. That cannot be ignored, really-- for it's baked into beings that are Self Aware: Self Awareness has a side effect: recognition of individual mortality.
Alas, I wish I could be convinced that there is more than what may be observed. But, both my parents suffered gradual degeneration of Brain Function towards their end, and that proves to me? No such things as "soul", therefore death is the end.
But that's not the only thing: It can help relieve anxiety, or fear of Human Extinction: if there was a God watching out for Humans? We'd never need to fear Alien Invasions, would we? Or a Zombie Apocalypse either. I'm not being glib here-- if there was a god caring for humans, then it would behoove this god to protect us from Cosmic Calamities.
That's not a trivial benefit. There is very strong evidence that a massive space-rock slammed into the Earth in it's past-- multiple times -- and that would be ... Bad for Humans.
If there was a God? Once humans arrived on the scene, we never need worry about such things.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Good point. I should have qualified the "God" statement. "God" as in some entity OUTSIDE
OF SPACE AND TIME.
I suspect (don't know, can't tell, but suspect) that the notion the universe created itself,
pulled itself up by the bootstraps, for no reason whatsoever, and without physical laws,
without space, time, matter or energy and without even numbers -- is dubious.
Let me repeat one thing - WITHOUT REASON.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
That's an impossible thing: "outside of space and time" is rather without any meaning.
You may as well say "outside of reality" or more accurately, "only exists within the imagination."
Something not in the universe? At least in part... cannot do anything TO the universe or anything within it.
But yes-- "outside the universe" is not reasonable, I agree.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
"Outside of the universe" is fairly easy to comprehend: as the universe expands, what
does it expand into? The void beyond. This is the same Nothingness the Big Bang
expanded into - it therefor is reasonable to expect it is what was here before the Big
Bang.
Not even physical laws or numbers exist in this void. It cannot, by definition as it has
no structure, be the cause of some ultra dense singularity.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@ecco,
I haven't finished reading the thread; so maybe this was already addressed?
If not, I thought @Darkforbid 's link to the 2017 study was informative. You asked:
The study shows that Atheists can be dogmatic.
For context here's the quote from Valjean:
And then @Darkforbid brought a study that concluded that it's true: Atheists can be Dogmatic.
From Page 25 of the study:
"
The results from this study again support the hypothesis that aspects of moral concern have distinct associations with dogmatism, depending on whether one identifies as religious or nonreligious. Both measures of moral concern (empathic concern and prosocial intentions) shared significantly different relationships with dogmatism, depending on whether one identified as religious or not, as revealed by Fisher rtoz transform tests.
"
Here is the link to the study. ( yes, it's a REAL study, no need to put it in quotes ).
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ral_Concern_in_the_Religious_and_Nonreligious
Further you claimed that "apparently no real Atheists were studied." ( see below )
And here's a list of the participants of the survey from page 9:
"
Participants self-identified as the following: 209 Christian (51.6%),
153 Nonreligious (37.8%), 24 A follower of some other religion (5.9%), 9 Jewish
(2.2%), 5 Buddhist (1.2%), 4 Hindu (1.0%) and 1 Muslim (0.2%)
"
In order to determine these religious affiliations, the survey asked:
"Do you believe in the existence of either God or a universal spirit?, Do you
currently identify with a religion?, Are you religious?"
Based on the simple dictionary definition of Atheism ( shout out to @ChristineM ), these questions should accurately identify an Atheist whom the study labels "non-religious".
I haven't finished reading the thread; so maybe this was already addressed?
If not, I thought @Darkforbid 's link to the 2017 study was informative. You asked:
The study shows that Atheists can be dogmatic.
For context here's the quote from Valjean:
And then @Darkforbid brought a study that concluded that it's true: Atheists can be Dogmatic.
From Page 25 of the study:
"
The results from this study again support the hypothesis that aspects of moral concern have distinct associations with dogmatism, depending on whether one identifies as religious or nonreligious. Both measures of moral concern (empathic concern and prosocial intentions) shared significantly different relationships with dogmatism, depending on whether one identified as religious or not, as revealed by Fisher rtoz transform tests.
"
Here is the link to the study. ( yes, it's a REAL study, no need to put it in quotes ).
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ral_Concern_in_the_Religious_and_Nonreligious
Further you claimed that "apparently no real Atheists were studied." ( see below )
And here's a list of the participants of the survey from page 9:
"
Participants self-identified as the following: 209 Christian (51.6%),
153 Nonreligious (37.8%), 24 A follower of some other religion (5.9%), 9 Jewish
(2.2%), 5 Buddhist (1.2%), 4 Hindu (1.0%) and 1 Muslim (0.2%)
"
In order to determine these religious affiliations, the survey asked:
"Do you believe in the existence of either God or a universal spirit?, Do you
currently identify with a religion?, Are you religious?"
Based on the simple dictionary definition of Atheism ( shout out to @ChristineM ), these questions should accurately identify an Atheist whom the study labels "non-religious".
Last edited:
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Meaningless nonsense, long since debunked by people wiser and more intelligent than I.
What is North of the North Pole? Meaningless question.
Which "north" does an ever-inflating balloon "expand into"? Meaningless.
The word "Universe" means "All that there is" -- you cannot, by definition, be "outside" all that there is-- if there were an "outside"? That would also be part of the universe.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
You are right and wrong. "Outside" of the universe (or now, multi-verse) lies NOTHING.
This is what an expanding universe pushes "into."
You cannot traverse this "nothing" - going up against the "outer" universe (should such
a thing exist) might likely bring you back where you started from.
But.... this 'nothing' which we saying is some impossibility, is supposed to have given
birth to the singularity of the Big Bang? That's impossible - too.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
What is this ... "nothing" you speak of?
*sigh*
It can be shown that "nothing" is an impossible thing-- and may in fact, not be possible.
In any case? If "nothing" is "outside" then? There certainly cannot exist a cosmic super-being, as that would be a 'something'.....!
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Void isn't nothing.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I suppose the "void" to me is outside of the universe. IMO the key aspect
of the void is there is no space. In the "fabric" of space you get "things"
happening, ie quantum, time, dimensions, photons, galaxies and turtles.
Outside this void kind of exists but does not exist - but again, it's what
the Big Bang ballooned out into.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
We don't know. Current thinking is that it doesn't.
But remember, that "void" you say doesn't exist
cannot be the birthplace of the Big Bang.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
The big bang doesn't claim a 'nothing' start
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Yes, there are theories of what happened "before" the Big Bang. Others
assert there "was no before."
The bottom line is that whether its God, a Big Bang or some multi
dimensional membrane colliding in hyperspace -- we don't know.
We draw our world view from our own personal preferences -
and claim we have the Truth.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Well personal I've go it reduced single force theory, but still feel it's incomplete not having a cause for the limits currently associated with the 5 dimension
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I tell you how scary this modern science is (at least since 1920's quantum)
Speed is a composite of distance times time.
But there is some suggestion that distance itself is composed of other elements -
how do you comprehend such things? In the near future you won't - we either
"won't get there" or our AI machines will figure it out, with no way to transmit
this knowledge in a way we can comprehend.
But ultimately it won't change the fundamentals of our existence - some will
believe in God, others will just believe in AI gods.