Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

What amazes me is the way Dawkins thinks he has a monopoly on rationalism. People rationalise the world in different ways and some see belief as a rational response to the world.

ah, in some circles rationalism/atheism = not telling anybody what each person is actually capable of, and then lying that any such thing exists so people won't try to find out for themselves. that is what the avatar the op is using, does in the game the avatar comes from, and that total biscuit got famous for making videos about. in this way, they can always have one leg up on everyone else.

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: blupblup

I think you are blaming religion for the faults of people.

No.... people commit the acts, Religion inspires them.

No point in debating as I learned a long time ago.... people's minds are made up/closed.

Enjoy the thread

are you leaving?

lol, "peoples minds are made up and closed!" "goodbye!"

a reply to: chr0naut

Nah.
Just humoring you in your ongoing attempts to distract.

a reply to: EnPassant

The less I think about Dawkins, his ilk, and the million of Dawkin/Hutchins/etc wannabe clones plaguing the net with parroting minds the happier I am.
Dawkins is one of the originators of the trend the OP talks about in my opinion.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: blupblup
To be atheist is to hold the conviction that there is no God.

This logically implies that the atheist knows that the possibility that a God could exist, is entirely absent from all the observable universe.

It logically follows, then, that an atheist would have to know everything knowable about the universe, which is impossible for a human being (but is part of the definition of deity).

Therefore, to be a true atheist, one would have to be a God, which is an obvious logical contradiction.

So in reality, a better definition of a human being who believes that there is no God, is an agnostic, which means "without knowledge" in Ancient Greek (The same word in Latin is "ignoramous", but for some reason people have not chosen to call themselves that, despite Latin's closer ties to English. What a laugh!).

So, people who call themselves atheists are not identifying themselves as particularly deep thinkers. They definitely have no grasp on logic or language.

On the other side, If you go to any textbook on science or philosophy, it is likely that an investigation of those people mentioned, who have added to our knowledge (the really clever ones), will indicate that the majority had a faith in God of some sort.

You're just spouting absolute nonsense to try and make yourself sound clever.
Atheism isn't a belief or a denial of God, There are no gods.... Atheism should be the default position and if any evidence ever comes up or if somehow a god revelas itself, then our position should change.

Atheism isn't the belief in anything.... It's a non belief.

Religious people ALWAYS try and say what Atheists "believe" and try to paint them as believing something and that Atheism itself is a belief system, It's absolute BS.

Atheists don't even consider God, because there isn't a god.
Much like religious folks don't consider the Giant Blue Elephant that is the size of Texas that floats around the world talking to its believers.

It's irrelevant.


You can't be a smartass to make religion sound logical or atheism sound illogical or stupid.... facts are facts.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: blupblup
To be atheist is to hold the conviction that there is no God.

This logically implies that the atheist knows that the possibility that a God could exist, is entirely absent from all the observable universe.

It logically follows, then, that an atheist would have to know everything knowable about the universe, which is impossible for a human being (but is part of the definition of deity).

Therefore, to be a true atheist, one would have to be a God, which is an obvious logical contradiction.

So in reality, a better definition of a human being who believes that there is no God, is an agnostic, which means "without knowledge" in Ancient Greek (The same word in Latin is "ignoramous", but for some reason people have not chosen to call themselves that, despite Latin's closer ties to English. What a laugh!).

So, people who call themselves atheists are not identifying themselves as particularly deep thinkers. They definitely have no grasp on logic or language.

On the other side, If you go to any textbook on science or philosophy, it is likely that an investigation of those people mentioned, who have added to our knowledge (the really clever ones), will indicate that the majority had a faith in God of some sort.

What is a god? Do we have an official, scientifically determined definition which doesn't rely on rhetoric or metaphysical woo-woo?

Because otherwise, the word "God" is as definitive as the contents of an abstract painting. Definition, meaning and value are dependent solely on the observer. Without an observer, the painting is pretty much worthless except as fodder for whatever organisms happen to find the paint and canvas palatable.

So here's my point, in case the above left you confused: how can you say there is a god if you don't know what a god is? I'm talking about a concrete, official definition constructed through an extensive series of scientifically engineered trials leaving no doubt as to the properties, nature, and origin of what we call a "god". And given that the lack of belief in god came long before any belief in god ever did, the burden of proof falls to the theists. After all, we have no evidence of dinosaurs worshipping anything. Same goes for every organism that preceded the homo series. Out of the 4.5 billion years the world has existed, only the last 500,000 have fostered any opinions regarding a higher power, and even in that 500,000, only a handful of inter-related species have held such opinions, and the vast majority of said species supported the idea of a higher power out of ignorance.

I'm hard-pressed to say atheism has anything to do with "shallow thinking".

a reply to: tsingtao

It's, sadly, a commonly used transparent escape tactic.

a reply to: chr0naut

To be atheist is to hold the conviction that there is no God.

Conviction would mean belief. Atheist dismiss an existence in the first place.
The place Atheist hold is (0), the default.
Not (-1), believing in the concept to god will put a person on the (+1).
People assuming god is the default when it is not.
A person would attain the (-1) when the existence of god is proven and they still reject.

This logically implies that the atheist knows that the possibility that a God could exist, is entirely absent from all the observable universe.

Logically? how? Default, god does not exist, which means, yes the possibility of god does not exist anywhere in the universe is true, because... it does not exist. Where did someone get the idea that it exist?

Atheist say it does not exist, means it does not exist to our current understanding, which include our current observable universe.

Maybe when god stop playing hide and go seek in the observable universe ill take him serious.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand Atheism. But I would never tell someone they were wrong and I was right - It's personal beliefs/faith. And I'd expect the same from both sides.

More often than not, however, those who choose to believe are often made to seem... backward, stupid and fearful of life after death. We're often ridiculed more so than the "science guy" right?

Enjoy posting! Most people are brilliant around here. I love a good debate!

Maybe in your circles friend, because in mine it's the atheists who are ridiculed and looked down upon. Maybe it's a mexican thing, I dunno.

As you said, i've learned to separate one persons belief to a persons knowledge, or smarts. Yet, and I know this is not the case for many theists, the fact that any religion has the structure to harbor cruel (Pederast Catholics) backward (Young Earth Creationists) and fearful of life after death (Santa Muerte) individuals kinda eschews the views of people outside these organizations.

Of course, there are these same types of people exist and will exist wether they believe in God(s) or not, or whatever. What is undeniable is that organized institutions of faith provide a safe harbor, sometimes even a place to extend and act upon these types of personality desorders.

And thanks for the welcome, I'm glad to be on the other side at last.

I'll see you around

originally posted by: luciddream


Maybe when god stop playing hide and go seek in the observable universe ill take him serious.

Two things

I loved that statement. Funny, yet completely true, at least in my case.

Not to add kindling to the fire, but I remember what my old GSCE History teacher would tell us:

"Saying atheism is another belief, is like saying being healthy is another disease."

originally posted by: JoeTheJoe

originally posted by: luciddream


Maybe when god stop playing hide and go seek in the observable universe ill take him serious.

Two things

I loved that statement. Funny, yet completely true, at least in my case.

Not to add kindling to the fire, but I remember what my old GSCE History teacher would tell us:

"Saying atheism is another belief, is like saying being healthy is another disease."

Heh. Heh heh.

originally posted by: blupblup
You can't be a smartass to make religion sound logical or atheism sound illogical or stupid.... facts are facts.

But that statement begs the question; has atheism proved that God does not exist? You say facts are facts - yes, but what facts are you talking about?

Facts are one thing but the interpretation of them is another. One person can assess the facts and conclude that God exists, another can do the opposite.

originally posted by: EnPassant


But that statement begs the question; has atheism proved that God does not exist? You say facts are facts - yes, but what facts are you talking about?

Facts are one thing but the interpretation of them is another. One person can assess the facts and conclude that God exists, another can do the opposite.

The facts are that there is no evidence of God.
A god or gods have not revealed themselves to the masses and therefore as far as we are aware, using scientific, empirical evidence, there is no God, there is no data for god.

(and yes, that's ignorant because god exists outside of time and space and cannot be diefined by "data" blah blah blah)

Someone may have a belief in a god or a desire for there to be a god, but this does not mean there is a god.

a reply to: blupblup

"Lack of proof is not proof of lack."
The simple fact is, we're *atheists* just as guilty of a logically fallacious argument as theists.

originally posted by: blupblup
The facts are that there is no evidence of God.

In some people's opinion there is much evidence for God. Many people have personal experience of God.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: blupblup
The facts are that there is no evidence of God.

In some people's opinion there is much evidence for God. Many people have personal experience of God.

Well there's that whole "Are we hardwired for God" debate that's been raging for a while.

bigthink.com...


The subject is fascinating and many people do have tangible, real experiences, but again, it's not with what you or religion defines as god.

Again, it's simplistic and dishonest to call these experiences either religious or that "God" is communicating with folks or vice-versa.

If we said said "It's God" to everything, then we'd be like this...






And our understanding of the universe, ourselves, our perception, psychology and many other fields and subjects, would never advance.

a reply to: EnPassant

has atheism proved that God does not exist?

Burden of proof is on who exactly? the claimers or the refuser?

is it YOUR responsibility or MY responsibility to prove MY claim of a magical turtle living in the sun?

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: blupblup
The facts are that there is no evidence of God.

In some people's opinion there is much evidence for God. Many people have personal experience of God.

Personal experience and not a valid evidence. If its not repeatable or "seen again".. its is as if it does not exist.

Sort of like talking rock that only talks to me when no one is around.

There are many factors of explaining hallucination in the human brain.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: EnPassant

has atheism proved that God does not exist?

Burden of proof is on who exactly? the claimers or the refuser?

is it YOUR responsibility or MY responsibility to prove MY claim of a magical turtle living in the sun?

If I might take a swing at this one...

The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. Life has existed since 3.5 billion. Only in the last 500,000 years - hell, we'll bump it to 1,000,000 - has the word "god" even been used. Out of all the species that has ever existed, only an inter-related handful have ever conceived of a higher being. And for the vast majority of their history, such beings have been conceived out of ignorance.

So...you tell me.

originally posted by: blupblup
Again, it's simplistic and dishonest to call these experiences either religious or that "God" is communicating with folks or vice-versa.

No, it is not simplistic. Many people insist that God is real to them. Nor is it dishonest. They are not lying.

But this is what many religious debates boil down to; what is evidence? If someone argues that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence then that is their value system. But many believe that knowledge can come from consciousness. That it is not repeatable, in scientific terms, simply means that human beings do not have power over spiritual reality. There is a great difference between intellectual knowledge and direct knowledge that comes from awareness. It is pointless trying to discount one because it will not fit the other's criteria. They are different and the debate cannot hinge on the fact that one does not fit scientific creteria; the subtext here is that the only valid kind of knowledge is that which comes from the intellect. But this is patently untrue. Most of our knowledge of the world comes from intuition and awareness.