Atheism is a Cop-out

reply to post by mr-lizard


I don't know whether some Judaic God , Krishna, Vishnu, or Pixies created the universe. It seems like there is no reliable evidence to suggest any did. As I've said before though... "Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence". Without the answers to questions like: What is the origin of all things?, we can only speculate. That leaves the tiniest (and I mean tiny!) possibility any of the above exist. Your assuming that you know the unknowable is taking and equally fundamentalist view as someone who knows the unknowable through their 'faith'.
edit: who

[edit on 07/17/2009 by Mumbotron]

Originally posted by pazcat
No, I am not.

Not what?

Thing is, I'm not assuming a thing and I'm quite content with that.

You seem to be assuming that a god is necessary in order for atheism to exist. If you are content with that, then go be content with that. Arguing with me about it shows you have some doubt.

It is you that seems to have all the answers.

Because I know what atheism actually is I seem to have all the answers? You are not assuming anything? I have to ask what religion or non-religion you claim.

I don't even really care about the whole subject to be honest.

5 posts later on it, I can tell.

I merely pointed out both sides are making the same leap, just on the opposite side of things.

I merely pointed out you are incorrect as your understanding of atheism fails. I was not trying to insult you or spend a page arguing with you. I just thought you might like to know what it really is since you obviously have no clue but an opinion.

Content to opine in ignorance? So be it.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by pazcat

I merely pointed out both sides are making the same leap, just on the opposite side of things.

You gave an erroneous conclusion based upon a false impression of Atheism and what it's about. No leap is being made on our end. There is no evidence of a creator and thus we don't believe on to exist, should evidence be found then obviously we would have to believe what that evidence dictates.

both sides need to prove there belief

That is a naive statement. Atheism makes no claims whatsoever. It is simply a lack of belief because there is no evidence in which to believe in. Theist make a claim and hold belief in that claim without any evidence whatsoever. There is literally nothing for Atheists to prove as you can not prove a negative.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by pazcat
Athiests use the same fools logic as the religious do, both jump to conclusions over something that when all is said and done they can't know for sure if they are right. Athiests just are not bound to serve any deity or higher good.

Don't have to serve any 'higher good'? Wow... Just abso-fing-lutely wow.

Yes, it is utterly wrong of Atheist doing good for the sake of doing good. How dare us heathen bastards not do good in return for an eternal reward!

lol

Don't you just love how religious folk think they are the only ones that do good in our world.
They must have missed all the Atheist organisations that help others less fortunate than themselves.
And there's no reward at the end for them, what a huge difference.

Being scared of not making it into heaven kinda negates all the good religions do- they are doing to for THEMSELVES, not because they genuinely care but because they are scared of dying and not going to a biblical heaven.

reply to post by lifecitizen


One of my biggest problems with religion and the question of morality is they're argument that without God there would be no morality. This leads one to conclude that a religious person only follows a moral life because they believe in God and are under the assumption that their act of morality will bring them an eternal blissful reward upon death.

That literally scares the crap out of me. I often wonder what kind of people they actually are if they're argument of morality is solely based upon a belief in a deity and a reward in death for being good.

These videos sum up this thread perfect fully.

Look I get it, but it doesn't matter if god is necessary or not. Just because you say god is not necessary and there is no evidence of any higher power etc, etc.. it does not make it true. Lack of belief is a belief in itself. It is a claim in the end really if it is something you believe to be true it is your conslusion. And you are assuming that it is correct. You don't know for sure that it is correct, it's just a guess all be it an educated one. Same with religion just that's a bit of less educated guess.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying thet it could be a possibility that you are but you guys don't seem open to that at all. That's cool and I do get it, I called myself an athiest for probably 15 years and i still feel strong connections to it but I evolved/de-evolved to realise that I may not be right. So yeah now I am agnostic and it sits well with me.

Basically this paper sums it up better than i ever could. There is more to it than that paper for me, but it's a nice little summary.
I didn't want to come across as i did but it's late and I am not the most articulate to begin with, I am not trying to force a point of view my original post was only saying if atheism is a cop out then religion is too. Then again the road I'm taking is probably the ultimate cop out, but at least I'm aware of that.

Mumbotron's post is good, it's along the lines of what I was trying to say before we all got defensive.

I hope that answers at the least some of the question asked, if not too bad, there isn't all that much more I can say.


And life citizen, you must of skimmed over the next post. That was a typo, it makes a point though and i agree with you guys on that 100%.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by pazcat]

The Nymphs?

I'm sorry baby but you know 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 make 5.

Gday,

Originally posted by pazcat
I take offence at the assumption I am a religious type, I clearly said athiest and religious types both fall in the same category.

Why is it so hard to spell atheist correctly?
It's in the thread TITLE even.


Kap

Originally posted by pazcat
Guess not.
The claim that there is no god. As opposed to the claim there is a god.
Both claims are jumping to conclusions.

Bollocks.
There is NO evidence for God.

Theists CLAIM there IS, with no evidence.
But atheists conclude there is no God, based on the lack of evidence.

Chalk and Cheese.


Kap

Originally posted by pazcat
I merely pointed out both sides are making the same leap, just on the opposite side of things.

And many people pointed out you are completely WRONG.


Kap

Originally posted by lifecitizen
Being scared of not making it into heaven kinda negates all the good religions do- they are doing to for THEMSELVES, not because they genuinely care but because they are scared of dying and not going to a biblical heaven.

This is EXACTLY the case, and they know it.
It's always/only about going to their heaven. And perhaps recruiting others gives an added bonus.

I really would NOT doubt it!

Originally posted by pazcat
Lack of belief is a belief in itself.

Rubbish !
How can anyone say such a stupid thing?


Kap

reply to post by Saul of Tarsus

Hey Saul,

Well you jumped right in didn't you. Good, don't lose the fire. I like your message.

When I first signed up with ATS I tried to convince people that God exists. I've listened to their arguments and I understand why they can't make the leap. They need/want evidence before they commit themselves to the "fairy tale". That's understandable since there are so many highly intelligent people here at ATS that look to science/logic for the truth. I understand their point of view and I even respect it in a way.

Farmers pay big money for seeds. Then what do they do? They throw them away. Where's the logic in that? Well, there's logic now because we've learned that the seed will produce a new plant and more seed. Evolution didn't do that, God did.

The law of sowing and reaping is a law of nature on this earth. It applies to agriculture, finances, love, hate, peace - and so much more - and even eternal life.

When we give ourselves to God, we gain eternity. We die to ourselves and the life of the Holy Spirit springs forth. The things we gave away will produce their own fruit and that fruit will feed us forever because we know there is no gain without giving.

They have not because they ask not. If only they would make the leap and ask God if Jesus Christ is real.

Peace

Agnosticism is superior to atheism in every facet.




_____________
God is Love

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Agnosticism is superior to atheism in every facet.




_____________
God is Love

Atheist : I never heard of this god before. Sounds interesting but fantastical. Any proof?

Agnostic : I never heard of this god before. Sounds really worth considering even given the complete lack of proof. I will waiver.



I guess superiority is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by Saul of Tarsus
Atheism is a cop-out. Non-belief in GOD is non-belief in self.

In the same way that non belief in 80ft tall invisible elves living at the bottom of your garden is non-beief in self ......

Moreover, and more pertinently, what do you mean by God? The Christian/Jewish/Islamic deity? Or one of the hundreds of other gods believed in by milions of people over the ages - all of which must be considered as being equally likely to be real?

Originally posted by pazcat
Look I get it, but it doesn't matter if god is necessary or not. Just because you say god is not necessary and there is no evidence of any higher power etc, etc.. it does not make it true.

Never said that makes it true. I simply pointed out that makes it what it is - lack of belief in your imaginary friend.

Lack of belief is a belief in itself.

In what language?

It is a claim in the end really if it is something you believe to be true it is your conslusion.

My conclusion? I have simply concluded that no one has ever shown me any reason to believe in unicorns, gorgons, or gods. How is one any more a claim than the other?

And you are assuming that it is correct.

Atheists are not assuming anything is correct. We are just accepting what has been proven. So far, every god anyone has brought up has been pretty well debunked.

You don't know for sure that it is correct, it's just a guess all be it an educated one.

We do not know for sure that no one has ever proven the existence of God?

Actually, I am pretty confident in that. Show me something that would change my mind.

Same with religion just that's a bit of less educated guess.

No proof of a god is what atheism is so if you understand that religions have yet to prove god...what is the problem with your understanding of the word?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying thet it could be a possibility that you are but you guys don't seem open to that at all.

Are you open to the idea of the flying spaghetti monster? Do you think it could be a possibility that omnipotent spaghetti and meatballs might be behind all this? Honestly, do you think that might be it?

That's cool and I do get it, I called myself an athiest for probably 15 years and i still feel strong connections to it but I evolved/de-evolved to realise that I may not be right. So yeah now I am agnostic and it sits well with me.

You gotta be who you feel. If you feel there is a chance there is a flying spaghetti monster and it does you no harm or anyone else harm for you to believe that, go for it. I will however wait for something more convincing before I begin to consider divine pasta.

Basically this paper sums it up better than i ever could. There is more to it than that paper for me, but it's a nice little summary.

I will save responding to that until I read it.

I didn't want to come across as i did but it's late and I am not the most articulate to begin with, I am not trying to force a point of view my original post was only saying if atheism is a cop out then religion is too.

I do the same thing. The problem is that you came into a thread started by yet another "Christian" just to bash Atheism and so far the only tactic they have employed is a tactic of lies and attacks. Jumping in the middle on that side to tell atheists what they believe is not going to go over real well.

Then again the road I'm taking is probably the ultimate cop out, but at least I'm aware of that.

Funny, I never actually see anyone bashing agnosticism so I do not think you have to worry about what anyone might think it is. There are no threads targeting you with falsehoods and attacks on your character.

You should just understand the difference.

Agnostic - requires a religion/deity
Atheism - DOES NOT.

It is an important distinction. I certainly would not knock you for being open to the idea of flying pasta, especially if you find it helps.

Mumbotron's post is good, it's along the lines of what I was trying to say before we all got defensive.

LOL. ATS is full of "Christian" threads started to bash atheists. In those threads you will find lies and attacks as well as the constant whining that atheists are always trying to prove them wrong and attack them. If people like Randy and this OP stop making threads to bash atheists, I am positive they will notice a decrease in what they call attacks. Hopefully after looking around you will see how these threads do nothing but inflame and anger. The very nature of what they are is hostile so it come with the territory.

It is also ok to have a heated religious argument here and then agree with each other about a conspiracy or paranormal event - like this site should be - anyway so you might as well get it out here.

I hope that answers at the least some of the question asked, if not too bad, there isn't all that much more I can say.


And life citizen, you must of skimmed over the next post. That was a typo, it makes a point though and i agree with you guys on that 100%.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by pazcat]

Be agnostic. I do not see anyone trying to take that from you. I can imagine thought that if I tried to tell you that being agnostic meant you believed in vampire mangoes, you might want to correct me.

Originally posted by Saul of Tarsus
reply to post by jokei

 

Before you ran to the headmaster to close the other thread, Gandhi replied:

"I see what your saying.

Because people are born, and naturally accept the reality their born in as the reality, and then jump to conclusions due to primitive surroundings; They don't realize the fact that existence itself is impossible with the logic of thinking they are using.

If they reset, then they would see that being an atheist requires a bigger belief system than any other."

I rest my case

Our consciousness is undeniable - the reason and mechanism of its existence is debatable.

Accepting that a creation event did happen, and that we don't understand it, does not equate to rejecting our own existence - nor does it automatically make one a theist.

While it is true that science is based on physical observation and data - it is not true that either logic, nor holistic thinking is required to be based on physical reality. In fact, only the poorest excuse of logic is applicable to physical reality due to our INABILITY to discern true from false (as applies, once again, to physical reality only).

The idea that a reasoning mind is trapped within the limits of physical reality, simply because they do not ascribe to belief in deities is nonsense.

I am agnostic - I am not confused as you assert in your OP. Rather, I realize the futility of drawing conclusions regarding metaphysical phenomenon, by using physical reality as a guide.

Because those things cannot exist within the constraints of physical reality - then we must accept that from that viewpoint, they are unknowable - not as Ghandi asserts, obviously self evident because of our inability to know them.

Some people seem to have a very poor understanding of what constitutes agnostic thinking.

While there are variations, I am agnostic and I can easily summarize the differences between my mode of thinking and that of theists and atheists.

Let us say a piece of information is in question, that is it is unknown.

Now let us arrange the possible values of this unknown on a scale between 0 and 1.

Let us further ascribe the property of 'true' to the value 1, and the property 'false' to the value 0. In doing so, we should also realize, that there are an infinite number of possible divisions in the continuum between 0 and 1 - or rather there are an infinite number of values, where 1 and 0 represent the extremes.

Now let us assume the unknown is the existence of 'god, and assign values.

Theist = 1 (one value)
Atheist = 0 (one value)
Agnostic = 0 to 1 (infinite values)

Well, its fairly obvious who has the best chance of being correct.

As a corollary, it is interesting to note that if you express either extreme view as a probability (whats the chance of this being the correct value) you have the following expression;

Probability = 1/infinity
~ 0

Now, for a bit of fun (and devilry) lets say as an agnostic, that I hold a completely contrarian view to both atheists and theists. Lets say I reject both the value 1 and 0 (they are both wrong I say).

Probability = infinity - 2 (two values, 0 and 1) / infinity
= 1

It is an unsurprising result for us agnostics, that we can mathematically prove not only are we always right - we are still always right even when we completely disagree with everyone else.