• 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!

Concern about Atheism

footprints

Well-Known Member
A claim that is not supported by evidence can be reasonably dismissed without evidence.

Unfortunately in life, the person who doesn't support their case doesn't see it that way. As has alread been testified to. Tristesse stated, that it is not up to a person who disbelieves a claim to have to support their point of view only the person who makes the claim. Sadly many believe this fallacy, it is not the first time this garbage has been mooted, and I am sure it won't be the last.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately in life, the person who doesn't support their case doesn't see it that way. As has alread been testified to. Tristesse stated, that it is not up to a person who disbelieves a claim to have to support their point of view only the person who makes the claim. Sadly many believe this fallacy.
Explain how it is fallacious to dismiss or disregard unsupported claims.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately in life, the person who doesn't support their case doesn't see it that way. As has alread been testified to. Tristesse stated, that it is not up to a person who disbelieves a claim to have to support their point of view only the person who makes the claim. Sadly many believe this fallacy, it is not the first time this garbage has been mooted, and I am sure it won't be the last.

Well, thats not quite what I meant by that statement. what I meant was, that I don't see any evidence that the god hypothesis is accurate. So, I'm justified in disbelieving the claim.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Yes, and another thing, I find it funny that atheists make the exact same claim as Muslims. Muslims claim we're all born Muslim, atheists claim we're all born atheist, LOL.

Did an atheist in this thread claim that? If not, why are you bringing it up?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
But I always hear atheists saying morality is subjective. That calling rape immoral is subjective. How?

Did an atheist in this thread say that? Why don't you wait for someone to make an argument before claiming it? I'm an atheist, and I don't think morality is subjective.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Explain how it is fallacious to dismiss or disregard unsupported claims.

That isn't what I said, albeit I will answer that question anyway.

What is an unsupported claim? Who is the judge of what is supported? You, me, the dog next door?

Any stance taken on this, would be just as arrogant or ignorant as the alledged person with the aforesaid, unsupported claim, if they didn't support their claim.

A real life example which occurred in this forum. In another thread, I gave testimony to the Swedish census. Many people have denied this census, and have asked me to supply it. The census is of course on the Internet for any person to find if they want to. The evidence given was the Swedish census, that I didn't put it up as a link, is it unsupported, or does the Swedish census really exist?

When dealing with people of beliefs and faiths, they will use anything they can to try and make their position seem reasonable. Even denying another point of view as being unreasonable or an unsupported claim. That is just how Faith and Belief operate, after posting in this forum for a while now, you should already know that.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Yes, but America's secular society happens to be built on the notion that a government can go to far, and it would be immoral.
Not exactly. It's built on the premise that it's not a good idea for government to go too far.
America was founded with certain notions about morals even if it is secular.
No, it's not really about morality. It's about what system of government works.
What would happen in an atheistic government where morals are subjective?
What the heck is an atheistic government? Why not just have a secular government like the U.S.?
Would another holocaust be subjectively evil?
Well, most holocausts are perpetrated by religionists, so I don't think atheism is the problem there.
How about population control? How about mass oppression? Would these all be subjectively immoral, so the government can do as it pleases?
You're very confused. Subjective morality doesn't follow from atheism, and "the government can do what it wants" does not follow from subjective morality. They're all independent.

In fact, I think an argument for limited government works better if you think morality is subjective.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
That isn't what I said, albeit I will answer that question anyway.

What is an unsupported claim? Who is the judge of what is supported? You, me, the dog next door?

Any stance taken on this, would be just as arrogant or ignorant as the alledged person with the aforesaid, unsupported claim.

A real life example which occurred in this forum. In another thread, I gave testimony to the Swedish census. Many people have denied this census, and have asked me to supply it. The census is of course on the Internet for any person to find if they want to. The evidence given was the Swedish census, that I didn't put it up as a link, is it unsupported, or does the Swedish census really exist?

When dealing with people of beliefs and faiths, they will use anything they can to try and make their position seem reasonable. Even denying another point of view as being unreasonable or an unsupported claim. That is just how Faith and Belief operate, after posting in this forum for a while now, you should already know that.

You and me are the judges of whats supported and whats unsupported. Who else could be? So, if you're not capable of determining whats supported from whats not, at least thats what I'm understanding from you. Than I take it that you believe in leprechauns. I mean who's the judge on whether thats a supported or not?
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Well, thats not quite what I meant by that statement. what I meant was, that I don't see any evidence that the god hypothesis is accurate. So, I'm justified in disbelieving the claim.

Yeah and people are justified in believing cats fly.

If you don't support your position, then you should know you are operating on blind faith. That you hold a belief, not a fact of reality.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Yeah and people are justified in believing cats fly.

If you don't support your position, then you should know you are operating on blind faith. That you hold a belief, not a fact of reality.

Hey, if you believe that cats can fly, more power to you. But it's not blind faith to reject claims that are unsupported by evidence.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But what if a person doesn't believe atheism? What if we really believe there is a god? Would we be forced to keep our expressions of that belief in secret?
You tell us - this hypothetical atheist society was your invention. If you don't know how would work, nobody else is going to know either.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
You and me are the judges of whats supported and whats unsupported. Who else could be? So, if you're not capable of determining whats supported from whats not, at least thats what I'm understanding from you. Than I take it that you believe in leprechauns. I mean who's the judge on whether thats a supported or not?

I am not as subjective as others, what I see as supported data, others see as leprechauns.

However in saying that, when I jump into their shoes, I see their leprechauns as they see them. I see their position and reasoning. Of course when I jump back out of their shoes and see the total picture of reality, not just the finite picture they see, I see how unreasonable their position really is, and just as subjective as others who may actually believe in leprechauns and preach that as gospel also.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I agree with footprints. If a strictly religious society ruled by one group was oppressive, we all know what's going to happen if any group dominates a society to such a point.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Hey, if you believe that cats can fly, more power to you. But it's not blind faith to reject claims that are unsupported by evidence.

Sorry to inform but cats do fly. I have personally seen them loaded onto planes, they put them in little cages, I personally thought it was cruel, but others assured me they were okay. Sorry if you don't believe this, that is your problem though to deal with.

Words have many meanings, I would suggest you stop jumping to blind faith conclusions of your own minds creation.

If you do not support your claim of disbelief, you are operating in blind faith.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Sorry to inform but cats do fly. I have personally seen them loaded onto planes, they put them in little cages, I personally thought it was cruel, but others assured me they were okay. Sorry if you don't believe this, that is your problem though to deal with.

Words have many meanings, I would suggest you stop jumping to blind faith conclusions of your own minds creation.

If you do not support your claim of disbelief, you are operating in blind faith.

Name one thing I believe in on blind faith. I do support my claim. I've already told you this.
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Okay, so I've seen atheists say before that they wouldn't mind having a completely atheistic world, because they don't need religion for morals. Wouldn't that technically only work if the people in that world were good people by nature? Like what if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?

Think like an atheist...

"Wouldn't that technically only work if the people in that world were good people by nature?"


In reality there are no gods therefore any good currently must come from the natural goodness of the human soul.

"Like what if the people were really bad, and the society started to get more and more corrupt? "

Education and legislation.

"Then what would atheists do to get the society back to functioning?"

Philosophy and order are the true core of morality, not religion; even in the world we live in now.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Name one thing I believe in on blind faith. I do support my claim. I've already told you this.

Tristesse, what you support your claim on, is held in blind faith, whatever that support is.

What you tell me, and what is actual reality can quite often be, and usually is, two different things. You are seeing yourself through your own eyes, through your own mind, what you are seeing is, the reflection of your own perception.

Goals are full of innocent people, they are there, but it wasn't their fault. If you are ever unsure of this, just ask the people in them. What they are seeing is their own reflection.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Personally I put it like this.

A good friend of mine, a very staunched atheist who doesn't mind speaking his mind, was watching television one day when I stopped by to drop some things off which he had asked for.

As I walked down the footpath which led to his front door, I could hear the cursing coming from his lounge room. He was watching some evangelist on the TV.

"What the hell, are you watching that for, if it gets you so uptight?" I asked, him.

"They shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of rot on there," he said, to me in reply.

"Some people do not consider it rot," I said, in reply, "Besides, if you don't like it, change the channel, switch it off, or do something different till it is over."

On a personal level, I do not know which is worse, evangelism or watching some person prance around their lounge room like a raving lunatic on some personal evangelistic crusade of their own. As he was a real person, I couldn't change the channel, but I could certainly drop the things off and leave. Which is exactly what I did do, telling him I would give him a call when he came back to reality and was a sane person once more. He is an intelligent man, he got the message loud and clear and apologised later.

There is an old saying, be careful of what you wish for, for it may come true.

On a more personal level, I would rather a world full of evangelists who just sit quietly and listen to some other person talk, sing a few songs and be happy together, than a world full of raving lunatics who fly off the deep end with everything they personally don't like.
 
Last edited:
Top