Why atheists should join religions:

I guess my point was that blowing yourself up by accident is less of a sign of stupidity if you're wired to explode at some point, rather than just getting way too into Drowning Pool or whatever.

I'm guessing we felt the same way about uniforms.

 

Short answer: maybe, but aren't atheists supposed to be better that religious people?

A lot of the atrocious behaviour done in the name of religion comes from insecurity and a desire to consolidate one's own power against a present or imminent threat. Whether that's right or not, setting atheists up in opposition to religion rather than merely as knowledgeable of it (which Dawkins' dumbed-down versions of his theories fairly unfailingly do) is a wholly unnecessary addition to a problem. It is also, coincidentally, a great way to rally people to buy your next book.

Rejection of religion as authority. God is dad, dad is bad. Have you notice that a lot of the most vociferous atheists are either young, live with their parents, or both? That's not to say that all atheists are like this. They fall very much into two camps.

 

I actually wasn't agreeing at all slugger.

*gently pats on the noggin*

 

It's true, sorry.
Nice call though, going with the standard atheist "You are ignorant" card - 5 star performance.

 

And yet this is almost always the reason/examples atheist give not to be a theist.
Unless of course, we are talking about the super intelligent, "God doesn't exist b/c you can't prove it to me" variety.

 

I never heard that before, I've heard that in some respects they are more rational, but better?

No I wouldn't use that term.

I would agree, but would add that expansionism and in some cases simple radical superstition can also account for religious atrocities, in many cases the "present or imminent" threat that had caused the initial insecurity was in fact another religion.

I don't think being in opposition of something you truly feel is destructive is a bad thing, in no way would I advocate violence of course.

More power to him.

Actually I've noticed the opposite, but that's probably because I don't speak with many young (under 18) people.

 

Radium doesn't exist because you - as in you specifically - cannot prove it to me.

 

Wacka wacka.

Anyway toots, there are, like, a gazillion threads in here for people to bawww about how stupid and naïve religious people are and how religion can and should and totally will be got rid of. This one is about how religion can be made smarter and more cynical. Just saying.

 

Which is the entire problem I have with only allowing life to flow in through a strictly rational/logical lens.
Almost everything stored up in our brains as knowledge/fact is, somewhere along the line, based in belief and faith.

If I know that God exist because of personal, internal revelation (something that I can never, ever give to you by nature), why does this make me a fool? Well, it doesn't. There are stupid, lapdog atheist just as there are intelligent, successful theist, because at the bottom line, it doesn't come down to intelligence, it comes down to belief.

 

Ah. I was just bitching about the whole thing of demanding proof and such in debates where no-one is qualified to do that. It basically results in a lot of link posting and quoting and fuck all in the way of interestingness.

 

That's because no one really has a clue.
It's funny when people try to pretend though.

 

I just equate it to demanding that a five year old prove that Hawaii exists and then asserting that the fact that he can't means Hawaii doesn't exist. All that's really been proven is that one specific person couldn't prove something.

 

I'm an atheist (sort of--more of an antitheist than an atheist but close enough) and my closest friend is a devout Christian. I can confidently say that atheism is a faith just as Christianity is a faith--atheists who actually know what they're talking about don't talk like you said. While there is no logical way that God can exist, there is no logical or scientific way to prove that he doesn't. It really comes down to a faith, a semi-blind belief that God doesn't exist, just as Christianity comes down to a faith or semi-blind belief that God DOES exist.

 

That's one form of atheism. If you don't care whether a god exists or not, there's no faith required in that. There'd be faith required to believe that one outcome was more likely than the other, but that's it.

By contrast, anyone who uses statistics to analyse anything is utterly dependent on faith.

 

Interesting.
But from the nature of what God would be and what we are talking about, would it be possible for someone to truly not care whether God exists or not?

And let's not make the mistake of equating apathy with a lack of comprehension.

 

Are you referring to yourself dudette?


...."Your mind is a bastion of ignorance"...
I truly couldn't have described you any better myself.

 

Pretty much. Certainly it's enough for a lot of people to wonder about something without really caring one way or another. I know I don't care enough to pretend I don't care at all, does that count.

Ultimately, God's existence/non-existence doesn't affect our daily lives unless we have faith one way or another. Most of us are happy enough to breath oxygen with having its existence proved (to us personally) one way or another. That doesn't mean that we necessarily "believe" in oxygen.

 

May you find peace, brother.

 

Hmmm..

The way I am looking at it is like this - God either exists or does not exists.
In either case, the product of that statement does affect our lives, even if we don't consciously recognize it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the question of the existence of God may not necessarily affect our lives, but the answer does.

 

I agree in the cases of more specific definitions of god. The existence of a god that does more than merely set/keep things in motion might be of more concern, but only if we are given reason to suspect there might be one. Personally, based on the available evidence, I have no reason to believe that any god exists that isn't either laissez-faire or remarkably consistent.