Atheists VS Theists

Post Reply New Topic

Who is more stupid?

Come on, no one really knows, so why claim that you do?

Well... ok, I think that from what I've heard, theism does tend to exist more often in low IQ groups than atheism. I am not sure this says anything of import though.

As for "who really knows", well... ok, the issue is that knowledge is rarely this definite thing. The case for atheism against agnosticism tends more to be an argument about the nature of knowledge than anything else. Atheists insist that we can adequately say "there are no fairies" in existence, in absence of an absolute proof, and based upon an extension of this, "there are no deities" is also valid. Agnostics say "you don't have proof, there might not be empirical evidence, so how can you know either way?". I'd side more with the atheist view than the agnostic view, but others disagree.

Thiest equips circular reasoning!

Atheist deploys Dawkins!
It's super effective!

Theist uses prejudice claim!
Theist is fully healed!

Atheist reads.

Theist uses pseudohistory claim!
Theist's arguement feels stronger!

Atheist uses verifiable evidence to the contrary!
Argument broken!

An atheist is an agnost that lives as if there were no god. compared to an agnost(which view point you seem to take), we have made a choice to not worry about it any more.

Theists will say that you(and we) have no invisible means of support. Atheists say an invisible means of support is not needed; the visible ones do a better job.

These theist/atheist threads are so damn annoying.

People who believe in an invisible imaginary friend with magic superpowers from a thousand year old story book vs. people who believe in verifiable science.

Hmm.

I believe the counterargument is
But the people with the imaginary friend believe life has some meaning, and for the most part atheists and scientists haven't cultured a life philosophy that makes them as furfilled, regardless of truth.

That line of thought can basically be summed up by saying "ignorance is bliss", but if that's your reason for being religious then in the end all you're doing is deluding yourself to create false hope.

That's a tough call when you put it theists versus atheists in general, it would depend upon the individual. Both sides are working from a position of incomplete knowledge; the theist does not really know God and although the atheist thinks he can explain how life evolved he cannot explain how it began or what the human sense of self is though most are confident that science will answer these questions in the future.

Many theists, however, think that they can sense the existence of spiritual entities. I agree that the possibility for delusion exists, but at least their faith is based on something rather than absence.

I know people like to argue back and forth whether there is a god or not, but since it isn't verifiable, to me the best course of action is to abstain from the discourse. It only serves to divide us upon ourselves. Would life be better if god just wasn't even thought about? I know this could never happen, but it's for contemplation.

Well, how verifiable religion is varies from person to person. Many people of religion believe it is verifiable that their God exists. Many atheists believe that it is verifiable that most notions of God do not.

As it stands, having a debate on an issue that will continue to divide us doesn't seem irrational. Religious people live according to their notion that God exists and what this entails for them. Non-religious people oppose this lifestyle. (religious people oppose the non-religious lifestyle as well) Conflict is going to happen.

As for God not being thought about? Well.... I don't see the value. I see some bit of value in having it less dominant in our culture, but religion is a part of our cultural history, and I don't think it should be forgotten necessarily. The Bible is one of the major books in Western Culture without a single bit of question.

Sez who? By what powers do you peer into so many minds?

Most Atheists seem to NOT be nihilists. In life you do not imagine meaning and feel filled, you work at meaning and that fills you.

Agreed.

Pikachu, I choose you!! !! !

I don't. This is the religious counterargument, given in rational terms, eg "Without our Jesus, who do you love? Is death just the end for you?" etc.
I don't personally believe this.

well, my view on agnosticism seems to relate with how empiricism works, in the sense that the scientific method does not claim a negative on any proposed hypothesis, such as, there isn't evidence, therefore it never happened. Which sometimes, people have that justification for few things, which is as flawed as the opposite. And given that the basic element of empiricism is doubt, and agnosticism is doubt. But yeah, the issue of theism-atheism spectrum (if you will) goes beyond that, given that it is a metaphysical issue rather than physical.

well, probably I can't justify my assertion properly but I can say that I'm agnostic towards God (and the nature of god) as much as I can say I am agnostic towards intelligent aliens, and well, I know aliens is a product of man's imagination, but I feel I can't claim they don't exist for lack of evidence. I tend to think that claiming a negative sometimes may seem an intellectual convenience in some cases. Not that I'm against strong or strident atheists but it may be the case for few, and I recognize the problem with logical proofs regarding the existence of God.

It seems that few of the strident atheists here, perhaps most, may be atheist agnostics, so it seems.