• 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!

Damn Atheists!!

pearl

Well-Known Member
2. Why do atheists care if people worship God?

I don't think they do, only when its public which makes it also in their name.

7. If you had evidence of God would you become a Christian?

I think many have been down that road, experienced Christianity, the reason for becoming an atheist.

10. If God exists will you not lose your soul when you die?

How do we know that many atheists do not do God's will even while not acknowledging there is a God?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
It's interesting. Europe was the heart of Christianity. They have voluntarily abandoned
this faith. Along with Christianity went optimism for the future, love of country, love
of children, acceptance of authority etc.. There's been this cultural nihilism - morality
is replaced with Marxist woke identity tribal mentality that doesn't just disbelieve in
Christianity, it disbelieves in many things - vaccinations, the role of science, democracy
(yes, freedom of speech is evaporating) and most of all - itself.
I am impressed with the force of Islam, and its amazing demographic growth in Europe.
Doesn't take long. And this isn't your 1950's style Islam - it's real Wahabi style Islamist
stuff taking hold and shutting down the liberals who supported them.
More power to them. We abandoned God, we will have to embrace Allah.
..here endeth the rant.......:D

Seriously, where do you get this nonsense about Marxism, anti-vaxers and no love of children? I have a good knowledge of three European countries (UK, France, Netherlands) and don't recognise your caricature at all. Do you actually live in Europe?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Would be interesting to see the breakdown of atheist/ Christian and other faiths in regard to the moderators here. Im sensing a majority of atheists but I might be wrong.

You would be wrong. We have about 16 active staff members here, and looking down the list, I count 5 that would identify as atheist.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Sorry that was a bit of a click bait title :D

Being an atheist my self, there seems to be a lot of post on these forum directed towards religious people and their beliefs and scriptures etc.

So thought that was a bit unfair, so found this video with 10 questions for atheists:

10 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer



These are just the questions written out from the video.

1. Does science answer everything?

2. Why do atheists care if people worship God?

3. Can nothing create something?

4. How do you know that God doesn't exist?

5. What is the origin of life?

6. Where does our morality come from?

7. If you had evidence of God would you become a Christian?

8. Why are there no observable transitional forms in the present?

9. Do you live according to what you believe or what you lack in belief?

10. If God exists will you not lose your soul when you die?

(Obviously I didn't make the questions, so I wont be able to clarify them any further)
I think those questions are a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the person who wrote them.

Imagine what a person must have to think about atheists (and the state of science, for a couple of them) to ask these questions sincerely.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I think those questions are a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the person who wrote them.

Imagine what a person must have to think about atheists (and the state of science, for a couple of them) to ask these questions sincerely.
I looked this up. It is another fundie group, called Inspired Walk: About Inspired Walk. Although they call themselves evangelical and "non-denominational", they are, as I and probably everyone else suspected, another bunch of benighted biblical literalists. Which rules out most traditional Christian thought, from Origen in 200AD onwards.:rolleyes:
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Let me ask you this. What tools do you use to determine if a person claiming to have a magical invisible dragon living in their garage is telling the truth? Would you expect them to meet a burden of proof? Would you employ the rules of logic to determine if the claim was true? Would you expect some verifiable evidence that supports the person's claim, like the scientific method does?

And if you failed to believe in this person's proposed magical invisible dragon, would that person be justified in claiming that you are ridiculing them and just using the burden of proof, logic, and the desire for verifiable evidence as a 'shield'?

As for 'holding court on a person', I've rarely if ever seen an atheist do that. What they often ARE doing is holding court on the claims that are being made.

It is the ridicule aspect of it. Ridicule is contempt. And if they enjoy prying with questions, and can't take any questions in return, and then go on to insult character then it's more of a witch Hunt.

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

Wouldn't it be better to say you have not met my standards of proof then demanding a tell all response?

Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

As far as your question goes the claimant has to meet a standard of proof, and produce evidence and that evidence must follow logic if the claim is to be considered. Otherwise everyone should feel free to reject it.

If it's an open conversation in an open forum then you probably shouldn't hold court.

If it's a debate then stick to the topic and avoid character contempt. Feel free to hate the claim, but don't go attacking a person otherwise with ridicule.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is the ridicule aspect of it. Ridicule is contempt. And if they enjoy prying with questions, and can't take any questions in return, and then go on to insult character then it's more of a witch Hunt.

And which questions you have aren't being answered? Remember that the answer may be that we don't know.

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

Sorry, but this sounds to us *exactly* like someone claiming they have an invisible dragon in their garage.

The default is not to believe outlandish claims with no evidence. Sorry, but that is simply how logic works.

And the reason is easy enough: I can imagine all sorts of wild things (invisible dragons in my garage) that are impossible to show *don't* exist. All that shows is that the impossibility isn't an argument *for* the existence of anything. And it isn't a reason to believe in anything.

Wouldn't it be better to say you have not met my standards of proof then demanding a tell all response?

And when we let you know what sorts of things *would* be evidence, you see it as ridicule. Again, think about what sorts of evidence you would want from someone claiming an invisible dragon in their garage.

Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

We aren't accusing anyone of anything. We are trying to get to the truth of the matter. And that means looking at evidence and withholding belief if the evidence is scanty. And guess what? That is the situation we find ourselves in.

Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

No problem. You can have the conviction that there is an invisible dragon in your garage. But then don't go and claim anyone who does not have such a dragon can't feel love, or be a good person, or demand laws be written against them. Leave others alone and you will probably be left alone also.

As far as your question goes the claimant has to meet a standard of proof, and produce evidence and that evidence must follow logic if the claim is to be considered. Otherwise everyone should feel free to reject it.

If it's an open conversation in an open forum then you probably shouldn't hold court.

It isn't a courtroom, true. It is an investigation into what is true. And that has higher standards than a courtroom, which is supposedly to find justice, not truth.

If it's a debate then stick to the topic and avoid character contempt. Feel free to hate the claim, but don't go attacking a person otherwise with ridicule.

OK, we can wipe the slate clean. What evidence do you have to justify the claim that a God exists?

BTW: please define the concept of God you are arguing for first.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
And which questions you have aren't being answered? Remember that the answer may be that we don't know.



Sorry, but this sounds to us *exactly* like someone claiming they have an invisible dragon in their garage.

The default is not to believe outlandish claims with no evidence. Sorry, but that is simply how logic works.

And the reason is easy enough: I can imagine all sorts of wild things (invisible dragons in my garage) that are impossible to show *don't* exist. All that shows is that the impossibility isn't an argument *for* the existence of anything. And it isn't a reason to believe in anything.



And when we let you know what sorts of things *would* be evidence, you see it as ridicule. Again, think about what sorts of evidence you would want from someone claiming an invisible dragon in their garage.



We aren't accusing anyone of anything. We are trying to get to the truth of the matter. And that means looking at evidence and withholding belief if the evidence is scanty. And guess what? That is the situation we find ourselves in.



No problem. You can have the conviction that there is an invisible dragon in your garage. But then don't go and claim anyone who does not have such a dragon can't feel love, or be a good person, or demand laws be written against them. Leave others alone and you will probably be left alone also.



It isn't a courtroom, true. It is an investigation into what is true. And that has higher standards than a courtroom, which is supposedly to find justice, not truth.



OK, we can wipe the slate clean. What evidence do you have to justify the claim that a God exists?

I don't make the claim that a God exists. I am taking issue with predatorial behaviour. So I really got annoyed with it.

I made no personal accusations. The comment was for those who know they are doing it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't make the claim that a God exists. I am taking issue with predatorial behaviour. So I really got annoyed with it.

I made no personal accusations. The comment was for those who know they are doing it.

I'm curious if you see the 'predatory behavior' in the OP?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I looked this up. It is another fundie group, called Inspired Walk: About Inspired Walk. Although they call themselves evangelical and "non-denominational", they are, as I and probably everyone else suspected, another bunch of benighted biblical literalists. Which rules out most traditional Christian thought, from Origen in 200AD onwards.:rolleyes:
I used to assume that "non-denominational" meant "our message works across denominations." However, I've come to realize that it usually means "our beliefs are so outside the normal spectrum that our lone church doesn't affiliate with any larger denomination."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It is the ridicule aspect of it. Ridicule is contempt. And if they enjoy prying with questions, and can't take any questions in return, and then go on to insult character then it's more of a witch Hunt.

Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.

Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.

Wouldn't it be better to say you have not met my standards of proof then demanding a tell all response?

Burden of proof applies to accusations being made. If I was to accuse you of something I would have to bear the burden of proof.

Most of the time religious claims are statements of personal conviction and faith based. If there are accusations in the claims then you are free to hold court on the accusations. If the claims infringe on your rights and others, by all means hold court on the subject.

As far as your question goes the claimant has to meet a standard of proof, and produce evidence and that evidence must follow logic if the claim is to be considered. Otherwise everyone should feel free to reject it.

If it's an open conversation in an open forum then you probably shouldn't hold court.

If it's a debate then stick to the topic and avoid character contempt. Feel free to hate the claim, but don't go attacking a person otherwise with ridicule.
I don't think the "invisible dragon" analogy was meant to ridicule. Carl Sagan originated it; he made great efforts to be inclusive and build bridges between people. I think the intent really is just to put the believer in the mindset of someone on the outside of a belief system looking in.

That being said, I have seen your reaction from other people before: many theists can get mad - sometimes enraged, even - by comparing their belief system to belief in dragons, fairies, leprechauns, the Norse pantheon, the Greek pantheon, etc.

... but here's the thing about all those other beliefs: they are - or at least were, in some cases - sincerely-held religious beliefs of many people.

I think it's quite telling when a modern theist treats other people's religious beliefs as transparently absurd.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I don't think the "invisible dragon" analogy was meant to ridicule. Carl Sagan originated it; he made great efforts to be inclusive and build bridges between people. I think the intent really is just to put the believer in the mindset of someone on the outside of a belief system looking in.

That being said, I have seen your reaction from other people before: many theists can get mad - sometimes enraged, even - by comparing their belief system to belief in dragons, fairies, leprechauns, the Norse pantheon, the Greek pantheon, etc.

... but here's the thing about all those other beliefs: they are - or at least were, in some cases - sincerely-held religious beliefs of many people.

I think it's quite telling when a modern theist treats other people's religious beliefs as transparently absurd.

I'm not even a theist, though I side that there is something to their arguments for the existence of something beyond what is physically evident.

I eschew most religion. But I came to RF to hear civil discourse not get verbally assaulted. I was hoping to hear thoughtful responses from both sides.

It's the warring nature of the arguments that I find needless.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I used to assume that "non-denominational" meant "our message works across denominations." However, I've come to realize that it usually means "our beliefs are so outside the normal spectrum that our lone church doesn't affiliate with any larger denomination."
Yes it can do, though the other sense also still applies. Sadly, the fundies make a huge amount of noise in the world of the internet and social media, seemingly out of all proportion to their physical numbers. This is the same curse of extremism and trivialisation we see in our internet-mediated politics.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not even a theist, though I side that there is something to their arguments for the existence of something beyond what is physically evident.

I eschew most religion. But I came to RF to hear civil discourse not get verbally assaulted. I was hoping to hear thoughtful responses from both sides.

It's the warring nature of the arguments that I find needless.
I find it helpful to remember that one of the reasons why an atheist might want to find a forum to talk about religion and theism is that these things are making major impositions on them - in terms of family, work, or society around them - and they're just looking for somewhere to vent about it.

I'm curious, though: what are you referring to when you say "verbally assaulted?"
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I find it helpful to remember that one of the reasons why an atheist might want to find a forum to talk about religion and theism is that these things are making major impositions on them - in terms of family, work, or society around them - and they're just looking for somewhere to vent about it.

I'm curious, though: what are you referring to when you say "verbally assaulted?"

That I am guilty of being laughably absurd for holding an honest conviction. That I am somehow being phony.

I really am against imposing anything to anybody. What impositions are you referring to? The only intrusive religions are Christianity, and Islam, and perhaps a few others.

Atheists desire to wipe religion completely off the map. That they insult the mere thought of a natural intuition.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
They dont mess with secualarity until you mess with them. Faith is a human right and atheist tend to condescend us.

If you want your religious freedoms defended, ask a secularist for help. If you think theocracy is the way to go, good luck to you my friend.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That I am guilty of being laughably absurd for holding an honest conviction. That I am somehow being phony.

I really am against imposing anything to anybody. What impositions are you referring to? The only intrusive religions are Christianity, and Islam, and perhaps a few others.
That's not enough? Christianity and Islam by themselves represent ~2/3 of the people on Earth. More if we're talking about the English-speaking world (i.e. the people who RF mostly draws from).

But since you ask, I haven't found a religion yet that doesn't become oppressive and intrusive when it's in the majority for a society. Along with Christianity and Islam, I'm thinking of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Pretty much any time a religion - any religion - is able to exert influence on government, it uses that influence to impose itself on people.

Atheists desire to wipe religion completely off the map. That they insult the mere thought of a natural intuition.
I'm not interested in wiping out religion (not that I think such a thing would be possible anyhow). What I am interested in doing is working toward a society where religion doesn't have the power to impose itself on anyone, and the only people participating in religion - or its effects - are those who freely choose this for themselves.

In terms of changes to the law, this means things like:

- the office of head of state of my country should not be tied to the office of head of a church.
- religious schools should not be taxpayer-funded.
- "advancement of religion" should not be a "charitable purpose" under our tax rules (i.e. a charity can be religious, but it has to meet the normal requirements of a charity).

I don't think this is too much to ask, but it's a goal that's quite far off.

Edit: and until all this happens, because I demand a say in the government and society I live under, to the extent that religions exert their influence on my government and society, I consider the affairs of those religions my business.
 
Top