How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

Quoting him for an opinion that he also shares. I don't see the issue.

dude might as well quote himself instead of a stand up comedian

I guess some of you will be like Bill Maher said that? ok though

 

[Gallo]

I mean, believing in a higher power is one thing...but all of this other shyt How can a grown person sit there and tell another man what he should and shouldn't do based on an ancient book. Just reading through the bible, you people know that the sun was said to revolve around the earth and change into the moon when it got tired That's just one of the countless examples of the Bible being just another book. And then you fukks have the nerve to laugh about the Greek gods, Paganism, etc. Yea, that shyt is ridiculous in this day and age but most people treat it as such. What you follow is just as retarded. Especially black Christians - are you serious? You know that it was literally forced upon you, right? And you still follow it?

You're looking at it the wrong way. Have some empathy, put yourself in their shoes. Instead of looking at it from "those beliefs are myths, why do they continue?", you have to look at it from "those beliefs are myths, but what function do they serve that they continue?" And the simple answer is that they are cultural remnants. But another answer is that the world can be a harsh place. Family members get sick, you work hard for little, people break your heart. It's like the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes." People need something to sustain them. Not everyone is educated, has a great life or are psychologically strong. That's where those beliefs come in, as they provide order, security, and most importantly, hope for their future. A survival mechanism if you will.

I'm an atheist btw.

 

[NoMayo15]

They could be looked at as theories

Not scientific theories. Maybe a theory in a colloquial sense ... but they aren't supported by fact.

dude might as well quote himself instead of a stand up comedian

I guess some of you will be like Bill Maher said that? ok though

It doesn't really matter WHO says it, if it's true, it's true. And Maher, most likely, was quoting someone else when he said it.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Agnosticism addresses a different question all together. You just admonished another poster for not understanding the terms in the discussion.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God

Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know either way

since there are no conclusive proofs of no God, the only faithless position is agnosticism

what is so hard to understand here

 

[BuyandSave]

You're looking at it the wrong way. Have some empathy, put yourself in their shoes. Instead of looking at it from "those beliefs are myths, why do they continue?", you have to look at it from "those beliefs are myths, but what function do they serve that that they continue?" And the simple answer is that they are cultural remnants. But another answer is that the world can be a harsh place. Family members get sick, you work hard for little, people break your heart. It's like the old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes." People need something to sustain them. Not everyone has a great life or are psychologically strong. That's where those beliefs come in, as they provide order, security, and most importantly, hope for their future. A survival mechanism if you will.

I'm an atheist btw.

This is true, but think about all of the deaths that were a direct result of one religion or another. The two don't quite cancel each other out.

 

[NoMayo15]

Atheism is a belief that there is no God

Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know either way

since there are no conclusive proofs of no God, the only faithless position is agnosticism

what is so hard to understand here

Because it doesn't require faith not to believe in something. Atheism isn't necessarily a positive claim that "no gods exist". It's disbelief in a positive claim from theists.

It doesn't take faith to be an atheist any more than it takes faith not to believe in the locness monster/santa clause/big foot/(insert mythological being).

 

[Zach Lowe]

Because it doesn't require faith not to believe in something. Atheism isn't necessarily a positive claim that "no gods exist". It's disbelief in a positive claim from theists.

It doesn't take faith to be an atheist any more than it takes faith not to believe in the locness monster/santa clause/big foot/(insert mythological being).

It does require faith to not believe in something

Atheism is defined by the belief in no God

this belief is not justified by conclusive evidence

hence faith



Agnosticism is your only way out of faith

 

[Zach Lowe]

Yo I didn't realize you Higher Learning atheists were so amateur

I'm out

I might be back later when Slaiman and Mr. Somebody arrive tho

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

It does require faith to not believe in something

Atheism is defined by the belief in no God

this belief is not justified by conclusive evidence

hence faith



Agnosticism is your only way out of faith

shyts not that straightforward

 

[Gallo]

This is true, but think about all of the deaths that were a direct result of one religion or another. The two don't quite cancel each other out.

Well whatever its negatives or positives I seriously don't think the species could have survived without religion. There is a reason why every people that have ever existed has created their own religions/myths. As I said before, it is a survival mechanism. The question, again, you should be asking is is it still functional today as a survival mechanism? Probably, so they will likely continue.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@Kool G Trap I know that distinction

what I said is still correct
the only faithless position is agnosticism

most of the time when people say they're atheist they don't mean that they're agnostic atheists, they mean classically atheist (gnostic atheist)

 

[NoMayo15]

It does require faith to not believe in something

Atheism is defined by the belief in no God

this belief is not justified by conclusive evidence

hence faith



Agnosticism is your only way out of faith

For ANY claim, disbelief if the default position. You then judge the validity of the claim based on the evidence &/or likelihood of the claim.

Maybe we should back up. Do you agree that belief is an active stance, and faith is the acceptance of a claim despite the evidence, or despite contradicting evidence?

@Kool G Trap Most of the time when people say they're atheist they don't mean that they're agnostic atheists, they mean classically atheist (gnostic atheist)

Link? Again, you've made another claim you've pulled out of your ass. Where do you get this info from?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

@Kool G Trap I know that distinction

what I said is still correct
the only faithless position is agnosticism

most of the time when people say they're atheist they don't mean that they're agnostic atheists, they mean classically atheist (gnostic atheist)

Dont make such generalizations without presenting data.

Also every single one of those four positions requires belief without proof or evidence.... Which is essentially faith. Just because you dont claim to know the truth doesnt mean that you're without faith on your position (there is a god, there is no god).

There are various types of agnosticism of course, but at the end of the day your skepticism is something of a belief in its own right.

Its all semantics of course.

 

[Zach Lowe]

For ANY claim, disbelief if the default position. You then judge the validity of the claim based on the evidence &/or likelihood of the claim.

Maybe we should back up. Do you agree that belief is an active stance, and faith is the acceptance of a claim despite the evidence, or despite contradicting evidence?

Idk how many times I can explain this to you

You're right, disbelief is the default position

But if you were studying the effect of sunlight on plants (idk, anything), your disbelief would be that you don't know whether or not there is an effect until you collect and analyze data

disbelief isn't believing that there is no effect from the start, that's a belief just like believing that there is an effect from the start

atheism isn't just disbelief, it's an active belief in the negative
If you're a pure disbeliever, you must be agnostic

Why back up when you're having logical fails already

belief must be an active stance in the positive or negative and disbelief must be neutral
faith is acceptance when there is no conclusive information

How is atheism anything like dispassionate disbelief when it proposes a belief?

I'll say this for the last time, the only dispassionate and faithless position is agnosticism (pure agnosticism to be exact)

 

[Zach Lowe]

Link? Again, you've made another claim you've pulled out of your ass. Where do you get this info from?

Do you want me to drop money to take a poll or something?

When people say they're theists do they most often mean gnostic or agnostic theists?

Now you're holding onto this graph because I destroyed your "atheism is purely neutral" argument