General / Off-Topic Atheist Goverments - The sword of reason

[UnKle]

I know man - I'm with you on that I completely agree.

Honestly I think we are all reason-ing beings from a young age and are taught religion - if you stop teaching religion it dies out. I think all faith leaders fundamentally (pun intended) understand this.

Science and reason are corrosive to religion - think of it this way, there are many explanations for phenomena that religion tried to cover from weather to disease and they have all been eclipsed by scientific knowledge. I can't think of one example where it went the other way and we abandoned a scientific explanation in favour of a religious one.

So I agree with Gold Member that you could indeed have a society or collection of people that (without violence and coercion) would reject mythologies and superstitions outright beyond their value as art or cultural literature.

Y'know - like we do with Zeus.

 

[Iskariot]

Atheism is a funny old word really, I mean we don't have names for people who aren't astronomers or people that don't collect stamps.

Yes we do!
I am a well known a-astronomer and a-stamp collector.
Sometimes I might even consider myself to be an anti-stamp collector.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

I think you confuse several things.
Atheism is a lack of faith. Not faith.
For a lack of faith one does not need proof. One simply does not believe because one does not have reasons to believe.
What is there to prove? How would you prove that something that at least does not seem to exist, does not exist?
There is nothing to find, because it does not exist. You cannot point at an empty chair and use that as proof.

I stopped reading there. Why? Because once again, you are saying you don't need to prove it, yet, simultaneously insist that faithful MUST prove their God exists. That's hypocrisy. That's saying...

"Well, I can't prove this doesn't exist because it doesn't exist?"

"How do you know?"

"Because."

Atheism--and in particular Atheists who believe that no God exists (they all do because THAT is the definition of Atheism. If you don't know a God exists... but might accept proof if shown one does... and can't say that one does not, then you are an Agnostic), are subscribing to a faith of their own. They are faithful. They are a Church.

 

[UnKle]

Yes we do!
I am a well known a-astronomer and a-stamp collector.
Sometimes I might even consider myself to be an anti-stamp collector.

LMAO - I like it, it is telling though of the over-arching power that religions have (or have had) - they try and set themselves up to be beyond criticism which for me is compelling evidence for their limitations as ideologies.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I stopped reading there. Why? Because once again, you are saying you don't need to prove it, yet, simultaneously insist that faithful MUST prove their God exists. That's hypocrisy. That's saying...

It's not hypocrisy as the burden of truth s on the one making the assertion.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Science and reason are corrosive to religion

Science is just as likely to prove there /is/ a God or creator as it is to prove there is not.

That is the goal of the scientific method. That is the duty of a scientist--to accept what the data shows and if there is any question of it, to formulate a new hypothesis and test again.

You will find that /many/ of faith believe in science and the method it entails. In fact, one of the smartest men to walk this Earth was a devout Christian. His name was Sir Isaac Newton. You might of heard of him. He created really useful and neat things such as Physics and Calculus.

 

[njc]

I stopped reading there. Why? Because once again, you are saying you don't need to prove it, yet, simultaneously insist that faithful MUST prove their God exists. That's hypocrisy. That's saying...

"Well, I can't prove this doesn't exist because it doesn't exist?"

"How do you know?"

"Because."

Atheism--and in particular Atheists who believe that no God exists (they all do because THAT is the definition of Atheism. If you don't know a God exists... but might accept proof if shown one does... and can't say that one does not, then you are an Agnostic), are subscribing to a faith of their own. They are faithful. They are a Church.

You are confusing gnostic atheists with the vast majority of agnostic ones that disbelieve god in the same way they disbelieve Santa. One does not have to prove that Santa doesn't exist to disbelieve him. But one does have to prove that, if he claims that he is absolutely sure that he doesn't.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

It's not hypocrisy as the burden of truth s on the one making the assertion.

Well then, Mister No-God, prove to me there is no God. The burden of truth lies on you. Prove to me it is so. I'm waiting. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time.

 

[UnKle]

You will find that /many/ of faith believe in science and the method it entails. In fact, one of the smartest men to walk this Earth was a devout Christian. His name was Sir Isaac Newton. You might of heard of him. He created really useful and neat things such as Physics and Calculus.

Believed in Alchemy too - was he right about that?

We all make mistakes

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Believed in Alchemy too - was he right about that?

We all make mistakes

Correct. And mistake number one is an Atheist refusing to accept that they are faithful in their own right.

 

[njc]

Correct. And mistake number one is an Atheist refusing to accept that they are faithful in their own right.

Again, you are confusing gnostic atheists with the vast majority of agnostic ones that disbelieve god in the same way they disbelieve Santa. One does not have to prove that Santa doesn't exist to disbelieve him. But one does have to prove that, if he claims that he is absolutely sure that he doesn't. There is no faith involved in not believing in Santa.

 

[UnKle]

Correct. And mistake number one is an Atheist refusing to accept that they are faithful in their own right.

You are an Atheist when it comes to Thor and Zeus though, no?

Just go one god further and you are there...

 

[Ian Phillips]

Time out.

Seems that people don't read requests to post their points in a non-personal way, or if they do they ignore the request.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Ok. Lets re-start.

Please remember to address the points made, and don't direct posts against the other forum members.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

Well then, Mister No-God, prove to me there is no God. The burden of truth lies on you. Prove to me it is so. I'm waiting. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time.

That is easy.
Say out loud: God, if you exist at all, give me undeniable proof within 10 seconds.
Good luck!

 

[Apos]

Ok. Lets re-start.

Please remember to address the points made, and don't direct posts against the other forum members.

Well, that was a surprise.

Well then, Mister No-God, prove to me there is no God. The burden of truth lies on you. Prove to me it is so. I'm waiting. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time.

Saying that god doesn't exist isn't an assertion, but the denial of one. Saying that god does exist is an assertion because the default position is the ignorance of such a thing.

If denial of an assertion was to be taken at face value as much an actual assertion, that would mean that every creation of the imagination would have to be considered true until proven otherwise. No exceptions.

When someone accepts a claim in everyday life, it's either because the claim is proven through evidence or it is provided by a person trusted enough to take that need away. That would be the outcome of trust, earned probably due to said person actually providing said evidence in other discussions in the past or purely sentimental reasons.

The thing is, this is not something foreign to people of belief, they actually do this every day and in every matter. Except one. This is why I hate giving examples, because I feel like they insult both my intelligence and the person I am discussing with, because they always have to be so absurd to prove something so simple...but here goes:

If I claim, "Drinking battery acid and growing a horn in your forehead will make a person defy gravity!", and we apply the string of thought you propose, at what point is my claim proven untrue? Let's assume I'm person A and someone else is person B:

B: "Battery acid is poisonous."

A: "Ye, that's why my claim is true for only those who survive the poisoning."

B: "There have been people who survived the poisoning and nothing happened."

A: "Yes, but they didn't grow a horn, did they?"

B: "Well, we have records of quite a substantial amount of people having survived ingestion of battery acid and no one even showed any evidence that it even leads to growing a horn."

A: "It doesn't matter, the horn either grows or it doesn't, there is no in-between."

B: "Alright, but there are plenty of other animals who have horns and none of them defies gravity*." (*don't send me pictures of birds with horn remnants people, they don't defy it, they counter it."

A: "That's because what I said applies only to humans."

B: "Alright, but we have never had any cases of gravity being completely ignored."

A: "I know, that's because what I'm saying is the only way in the universe to do it."

B: "No pal...you're just wrong..."

A: "You haven't proven that I'm not, I gave the exact specific thing that needs to happen and it didn't, so you got no evidence against my claim because all of what you said aren't related to it."

B: *flips tables and leaves*

See how this goes nowhere if the refusal of the assertion is the one that has to prove itself? Also, see how stupid an example has to be in order to emphasize on something so basic?

 

[Vasious]

I disagree. Religion dies a natural death when people are educated. You seem to assume an atheist society would feel threatened by religion and need to forcibly keep it out. Any truly atheist society would welcome with some bemusement efforts to share stories of fantastic creatures and magic. It would then share in return its own stories of fantasy and magic.

It is religion that has been known to murder and torture opposing ideas out of the society. In many places in the US and the middle east, it is practically inviting personal harm to publicly say one is an atheist (there are laws against it in some countries). Christians would deny opportunity or ostracize someone who doesn't believe in a magic fairy man because that is worse than believing in a different version of the fairy (Islam's Allah vs Christianity God/Jesus/Yahweh).

Reality does not back up your claim about how one would keep 'religion' out of a society. The simplest way would be to never teach religion to children. As adults we would have no problem finding the stories ridiculous.

Religion can easily be taught in mythology class.

If you were questioning why a Dictatorship was suggested

Dictatorship was suggested because of the Militant part of the Militant Atheist label, that is all.
The way the OP described place with aggressive method of delivering atheism, politically entrenched, socially encouraged, educated into every fibre of existence & an unfettered hatred of their enemies.
The Method the OP described but not a reflection of Atheism in general

And fitting with the Militant Theme, Dictatorships also legalism Personal Weapons and reactive armour, which seems to fit the idea as well

 

[Apos]

If you were questioning why a Dictatorship was suggested

Dictatorship was suggested because of the Militant part of the Militant Atheist label, that is all.
The way the OP described place with aggressive method of delivering atheism, politically entrenched, socially encouraged, educated into every fibre of existence & an unfettered hatred of their enemies.
The Method the OP described but not a reflection of Atheism in general

And fitting with the Militant Theme, Dictatorships also legalism Personal Weapons and reactive armour, which seems to fit the idea as well

It could also be a prison colony that enslaves religious people and has the atheists leaving in riches out of their labor.

The possibilities are endless and only subject to how cruel someone wants to be...and whether FD will accept it.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

Well then, Mister No-God, prove to me there is no God. The burden of truth lies on you. Prove to me it is so. I'm waiting. I imagine I'll be waiting a very long time.

Aawwww 2016 and some people are still using that as an argument. It might come as a surprise to you, but hey, you can't prove that something does not exist. You just can't. Tell you what: I believe in unicorns with hamster legs, burping rainbows and crapping emeralds incrusted gold ingots. Prove me they don't exist.

Sorry, but it's still up to you to prove that God exists.

And for the sake of clarity, I am an atheist, obviously, but not a militant one. I don't feel the need to define myself as one. Atheists only exist because some people believe in god(s). If there was no religion to begin with, there would be no atheist. I don't have a problem with other's belief. I have no faith that a god does not exist. I just don't know, and without religions around yelling about their various gods, I would probably not care. If there is such thing as a god, fine, so be it. Let him/her/it/them come and say hello. Then I'll have no reason to believe, I'll just know. Right now, I have only questions. No certituds, no faith. God/no god is not a cause, to me.

Incidentally, I'd flee just as far away from bigots than from people pretending to be activist atheists and claiming to incarnate reason. It's also a form of bigotry, and for once, blastman, I would agree with you: this behaviour is not all that different from faith.

 

[Iskariot]

Science is just as likely to prove there /is/ a God or creator as it is to prove there is not.

That is the goal of the scientific method. That is the duty of a scientist--to accept what the data shows and if there is any question of it, to formulate a new hypothesis and test again.

I agree with the gist of what you say although I have no idea about the likeliness.
Currently to me it seems very unlikely that there are godlike beings to be discovered at all.
I just don't get why, if those gods exists, would they make it look like they don't.

There is a reason for the fact that religion has been retreating for ages now, when it concerns generating valid explanations for how reality works. The god of the gaps is not a god of the gaps for no reason.
And even scientists who believe in some kind of god do not accept a god of the gaps if they understand how science works.
The god of the gaps is an impotent god that will be pressed to find forever shrinking gaps to hide in.

I stopped reading there. Why? Because once again, you are saying you don't need to prove it, yet, simultaneously insist that faithful MUST prove their God exists. That's hypocrisy. That's saying...
"Well, I can't prove this doesn't exist because it doesn't exist?"
"How do you know?"
"Because."

Atheism--and in particular Atheists who believe that no God exists (they all do because THAT is the definition of Atheism. If you don't know a God exists... but might accept proof if shown one does... and can't say that one does not, then you are an Agnostic), are subscribing to a faith of their own. They are faithful. They are a Church.

You use a particular limited definition of atheism because it suits your argument.
An agnostic is an atheist too as he too does not believe in a god.
It is just a confusing term that was coined by Huxley. I won't be thanking him for that disservice .

Atheism to me personally is what the word says: a = without, theos = god.
So I am without god.
I am without god because I simply see no reason to believe in one (whatever one that might be).
Valid reasons to believe in such an invisible god-like being with magical powers have never been presented to me and you walk away from it too.
You simply reinforce my disbelief that way. If you have reasons then you can now present them.
I will consider any reasons you present with care, because I think this is one of the most important considerations in a human's life.

You cannot ask from someone who does not believe in the existence of something invisible and magical to prove that it does not exist.
That is obviously unreasonable.
Would you care to prove to me that Thor does not exist, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the many thousands of gods and other magical beings that were made up by mankind?
Should I believe in any of these magical beings because it is impossible to prove they do not exist?
Do you not understand that this is unreasonable? Or do you insist just to avoid your own burden of proof?
Religions have setup their magical beings to be elusive and inscrutable.
Not purposely, but it is a natural process that has evolved with time to protect religion.
You can literally witness religions like christianity retreat and become more evasive and cryptic about their gods while our knowledge of the universe around us grows. I already mentioned the god of the gaps mechanism.

You on the other hand state that some kind of invisible magical being exists.
It is not clear to me what type/brand of god you believe in, but something seems to convince you about it's existence.
If you want me to believe that, then it is a reasonable request that you present some convincing reasons.
I think I am not asking much.

Just present me your single best reason to believe in this invisible magical being.
It does interest me as I have never before seen a single valid reason to believe in such a thing.
I honestly always thought these reasons did not exist.
That is why I am now without a god after all.

I was a christian once though, until I examined my beliefs and saw there was no reason for them at all.
It is not an unwillingness to believe that makes me an atheist, but I do need good reasons to be a theist. Doesn't everyone?
Do you have at least one such reason?

 

[Mikey2305]

Wahoo, up and running again...

So to paraphrase CS Lewis, God either exists or does not exist. No grey area in between

If he does exist then it is reasonable to assume that what he says about himself is true

If he doesnt exist, then the people who believe in him are deluded. But that is of little consequence in the context of eternity. Except when religiosity is used to take advantage of others

However, if he does exist then it is a matter of profound importance. There can be no other point in life other than to be born, to live and to die. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important. While i will not proselytise, i would encourage folks to examine the evidence and decide for them selves rather than serve up the usual random cliche arguments that always manifest themselves in these kind of discussions

Please treat this as a positive statement as its meant to be. I have no issues with anyone who is an atheist, an agnostic or whatevever if that decision has been well reasoned and argued. Either im right or im wrong and im close enough to the end of my life for it to matter..

Ps.. What i believe and how i came to believe it are not for here. Pm me if interested...