I'm starting to see ignorance on both sides of the line. Atheists and religious people. Personally I just want people to understand my point of view and not make me believe in something. I understand their side why cant they understand mine. And why cant some atheists understand theirs? We dont have to change them. Just make them understand our point of view. So don't be so harsh on them. They just need false hope to get them through their day. Have them understand your point of view but dont make them change who they are. Dont be ignorant to how they think. Because just so you know. Theres always the smallest possibility that we're wrong. The possibility of them being wrong is way bigger but there is still the slight possiblity that we're wrong. So just remember this before you go all crazy over someone saying God bless america or something like that. it's been a saying for the longest time I dont think its gonna change right away.

Thank you


Views: 217

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

leave suicide trigger happy guys & religious people at it... imagine if every atheist leave that the people who wanted state from religion separate thought that way?

they're the majority, we are the minority & if we don't hiss and show we know we will be stepped on!

We have the constitution behind us.
Admit it you guys, those who say they are "not sure" and claim to be atheists; or those who claim to belief in some supernatural "spirits" or "energies" and claim to be atheist are not atheist!!!! No intellectual or rational atheist would consider them fellow atheists regardless of a strict dictionary definition. This includes Christopher Hichens, Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris. They still believe in superstitious crap or are "unsure"!!

Being an atheist doesn't make you a skeptical Sassan. Even if famous atheist are skeptical that doesn't mean that your "daily life" atheist doesn't believe in supernatural things. Some of them are begining with the atheist position so don't expect the same things for all the atheist in the world.


I think that you are commiting a logical falacy. "All atheist must be skeptical, this man/woman who claim to be an atheist is not skeptical at, all therefore he/she is not an atheist"


If there is some mistakes in my writting please excuse me, I'm still working on my english.

Sorry, Sassan, but you are wrong on this one.  No one is completely certain of anything.  Which is not to say that we can't be certain at all.  What I mean is that there is no absolute, objectively correct yardstick by which to measure factual certainty.  There is an extremely remote, infinitesimal chance that you do not exist, but are a hallucination my brain has manufactured.  Surely, you have heard all this before.  Yes, I know that it is hogwash in a sense, but it is instructive hogwash.  What it tells us is that we are on our own when it comes to defining certainty.




I am about as certain that the god hypothesis is false as I am that the fairy hypothesis is false, but does that make me completely certain?  It all comes down the level of uncertainty one is willing to write off as negligible.

This is actually the MOST RATIONAL position to take. Saying with 100% certainty that something DOES NOT EXIST is not rational.
Bertrand Russel is not amused. ;)
I don't see how that contradicts what I said at all. It isn't the skeptic's business to disprove the claim (god or teapot, whatever), and therefore also not the skeptic's business to make positive statements about the non-existence of the claim because that would require a proof. In practical terms the actual outcome is the same, the claim is dismissed as being profoundly unlikely.

Here's the scientific way: Observation-->Theory-->Evidence-->Explanation-->Refinement 

It's not right or wrong, just righter and wronger. The Ptolemeic theory was very good at explaining the observations regarding the Universe up until about 500 years ago, when Copericus refined the system. Just like today we have a 4 dimensional Einsteinian explanation of the Universe, it's not necessarily sufficient to explain the next 2000 years of observations (or even the ones we have today). 

Likewise, Goddunit was a good explanation up until about.. The death of Akhenaten around 3500 years ago or so? ;)

But, just like the people who believe the Ptolemeic theory to be true today are ignorant idiots, the people who believe in the God theory are too.

Why do atheists have to be "not ignorant"? All atheism is, is a non-belief in gods. Education, ignorance, closed mindedness, open mindedness, love, compassion, none of that is included in being an Atheist.

Because being ignorant is what religion does best. Atheists should be "better" than that and also encompass the above. Atheism is just a part of rationality and humanism. It's like saying you are a Christian but don't believe in God.

It's nonsense no true Scotsman would stand for. ;)

I know plenty of Atheists that are ignorant and do not think critically. It may be a coincidence, and may be reflected in statistics, but it is not necessarily the case, nor should it be. As you say atheism is just a part of rationality and humanism, BUT it is also just a part of many other philosophies themselves and is not exclusive to rationality or humanism. It's essential to absurdism, nihilism, anarchism, communism, objectivism, etc. I get irritated when people try to refer to Atheism or Atheists as their own tribe of sorts. I don't think you were trying to make this point, but I think it should be said anyway: Humanism doesn't have a monopoly on non-belief.
If Clarissa had said that those claiming to be rationalists were just as ignorant, well that would be worthy of a discussion. This isn't. There are many different kinds of people who call themselves Atheist. It just means non-belief in a deity, and I will fight PZ Myers to the end about it.


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service