Spreading Atheism

[Bakaferret]

The problem is, and I have seen it on this very forum far too much is that atheists quickly become anti-theists. Dipshits who just use atheism as a excuse to verbally attack christians. Now don't get me wrong. I hate any bible thumping fuckwit who knocks on my door as much as the next cranky, anti social hate monger. But these anti-theists just fuck up our cause and make people not even willing to give them a chance as it is just a flame war waiting to happen.

THANK YOU! As a Christian, I have ZERO problem with atheists...but anti-theists are AWFUL. There's a fine line between the two, however...too often I've found that my atheist friends are anti-theist because they hated church growing up and it's some kind of half-assed effort to rebel against mommy and daddy. I wish people would have a better reason for their life's philosophy than "Because my parents made me do it and my parents TOTALLY SUCK."

 

[xplay3r]

... Wait.

Athiests. "Probably no God."

Eh... I'm trying to figure this out, but...

Probably? Don't athiests say "there is definitely no God"? Methinks those guys need to rethink the name of their little club

I think there level headed athiests. They know there is no god just as much as religions know there is a god. There's no solid proof on either side. No one's proved there is or isn't a god, and from what they've seen they believe there isn't one. So they believe there probably isn't one, but they can't prove it so they say there probably isn't. That's actually the best way of looking at it I believe, either side, wether you think there one or isn't, the best way to think about it is "there probably isn't" or "there probably is."

OT:There will always be a battle of belief as long as two types of beliefs exsist, wich there always will, no matter what facts come out. Figthing about it is stupid and is fultile, because faith is believeing in something when there is no proof, so you can't prove anything.
It's like fighting over a flower, I think it's beautiful and smells good, you think it's ugly and smells bad. Neither can prove it because there's a feeling or a reaction in me that says one thing and vise versa.

If religions can say there IS a god people should be aloud to say there ISN'T a god, but because there's no proof, it should be okay to say there PROBABLY isn't. Just as churches should say there PROBABLY is. IT's a feeling inside of you that dictates your belief on the subject.

But religion has had the upper hand for thousands of years, times are changing but until religion doesn't exsist (wich will never happen) there will be a battle.

No they shouldn't be able to say there isn't, jsut as religions shouldn't be able to say there is.
But both sides should be able to say "probably" It's the most fair, mature, level-headed way of going about it as I can think of.

 

[The Heik]

Well as it is a legitimate viewpoint, Aetheism should be recognized as a religion, with all the bells and whistles that go with it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's quite simple, looking beyond all this "probably" whatever blah. Would that statement survive as a post on the Escapist? It wouldn't. If a topic was posted with only "There is probably no god", it would be locked. In the same way, the administration just "locked" the statement.

I don't see any reason for this to be an argument unless "There probably is no god" was followed by "and if you would like to discuss this, meet at blah blah".

Or if the Christians had doodled "JESUS RULES!" and nobody said anything.

 

[gerrymander61]

If, as most atheists claim, atheism isn't a religion, then they have no business trying to push their values on others. There is no word to spread.

 

[asinann]

Religious people demonize atheists more than they do satanists because at least the satanists believe in some sort of power over them.

Though if you are in the US, you could sue to get "Campus for Christ" shut down or an atheist group formed and allowed.

 

[Semitendon]

Technically Athiesm is not a religion, but in the common sense of the word, along with it's many parallels to religions, it might be. For example:

Religions have prophets/respected leaders: Jesus, Budda, the Pope, Billy Graham.

Athiests have prophets/respected leaders: Hitchens, Dawkins, Darwin.

Religions have a theory as to the beginnings of existence: Creationism, Great Spirit

Athiests have a theory as to the beginnings of existence: Evolution, Aliens

Religions can condemn those who disagree with them.

Athiests can condemn those who disagree with them.

Religious people go about trying to get people to convert to their belief system.

Athiest people go about trying to get people to convert to their belief system.

The list goes on and on, but the major differences are that religion has an organized system, churches, and worship. While Athiesm is largely independent, has very few places of congregation, and does not worship ( although the case may be made, that scientists are worshipped in a sense) Is this enough to say that it is not a religion? Maybe. But given it's belief system, and tendencies, most people would consider it a religion, not in definition, but in practice.

As to the issue of the cannon advertisement, I have no problem with the athiests paint job. However, in yet another parallel to religion, their choice of wording was delibrately meant to insult those with different beliefs. Now, I have no problem with that, as long as you don't complain when the opposing group returns that action. That goes for both religious people and athiests.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Atheism is not something that should be forced upon other people, it's a decision that they must come to themselves of their own accord and journey. That being said, I think I just disproved the existence of a Christian God:

Spoiler

But given it's belief system, and tendencies, most people would consider it a religion, not in definition, but in practice.

On the contrary Atheism is a lack of belief separating it from a religion. You say we worship scientists? Really it is a more of respect for people who have taken the time to learn and understand, become wise. I'd say the main difference between organized religion and Atheism (apart from the God thing) is that a religion tells someone how to live their life to be seen as better people in the eyes of their God, atheists do not have this, the only laws we follow are those of our countries and physics.

 

[Brett Alex]

I find the choice of words quite funny:

"There is probably no God."

Its like he wanted to hedge his bets, just in case.

EDIT:
I can see this guy was tagging revolutionary slogans:

"probably DOWN WITH THE PRESIDENT!"

"WALL STREET FAT CATS might BE STEALING YOUR MONEY! though we should probably stage an independent inquiry first"

"MAKE BOTH LOVE AND WAR IN EQUAL AMOUNTS OF MODERATION!"

 

[sneakypenguin]

Eh, its kind of an instigating post. Saying "there probably is no God" is kind of on par with a christian group saying "your probably going to hell" it serves no purpose other than to antagonize.

 

[Skeleon]

If, as most atheists claim, atheism isn't a religion, then they have no business trying to push their values on others. There is no word to spread.

Uhm, what?
First off, religions don't have the right to push their views on us, either, they just try to do it.
Secondly, atheists have the right to spread news of their organization just as much as any religious, philosophical, political, theatre, sports, cinematic, computer or whatever group.

...their choice of wording was delibrately meant to insult those with different beliefs.

Say what? "There probably isn't a god"? Deliberately meant to insult?
"There's no god and you're a retard if you believe otherwise" would be insulting.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Atheism is not something that should be forced upon other people, it's a decision that they must come to themselves of their own accord and journey. That being said, I think I just disproved the existence of a Christian God:

Spoiler

But according to the Bible God gave man a free will, and the free reign to do as he pleases. So that argument isn't quite up to par.

 

[tsb247]

Personally, I don't believe atheism is a religion in any sense. It's more of a philosophy, a way to look at life, a scientific reasoning. And I don't mind atheists making information about their thought process available, but I don't really see a reason to "spread the word".

Atheists who have made an intelligent, informed decision in their life choices are fantastic in my book. Atheists who feel it is their goal in life to look down on others who use religion as a comfort in life, or atheists who feel high and mighty for their views are JUST as bad (IMO) as any "Christian" who sings tales of fire and brimstone and children going to hell for liking things like Harry Potter. Neither get their point across and only seem to exist to spark hatred from the other side.

And yes, I do consider myself a non denominational Christian...although I fully understand why many people have a problem with people claiming to be Christians today.

You said everything I was going to.

Athiests that see it as their duty to spread, "Their way," are just as bad as some of the crazier evangelical sects of Christianity.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

Atheism isn't a religion. it's a belief that all religion is false.

IMO Atheists are just as stubborn as the most hardcore religious.

They both believe absolutely in something which is impossible to know. And they're both very hardheaded about acknowledging they may be wrong.

 

[heyheysg]

They should have probably covered it in tasty and nutritious spaghetti gifted to us by the true creator of the universe.

It's good for you!

 

[sneakypenguin]

Eh, its kind of an instigating post. Saying "there probably is no God" is kind of on par with a christian group saying "your probably going to hell" it serves no purpose other than to antagonize.

No, it is on par with a Christian group saying "Jesus died for you".

Eh, still the intent is to somewhat antagonize. Its not an ad for a group it's a statement against another. Granted not everyone will see it like that but schools usually go on the side of caution.

 

[Alex_P]

It's quite simple, looking beyond all this "probably" whatever blah. Would that statement survive as a post on the Escapist? It wouldn't. If a topic was posted with only "There is probably no god", it would be locked. In the same way, the administration just "locked" the statement.

There's an obvious difference -- the medium. The standards for a forum where you can write paragraphs and paragraphs of text are different from the standards of a place (or, in this case, object) designed specifically for quick, eye-grabbing advertisements.

Here's an easy example. On a forum, a thread that just contained the text "youfoundthecard.com" would probably be locked for lack of content. That doesn't mean "youfoundthecard.com" cards are somehow bad themselves.

"There is probably no God" isn't indecent language, it's not hate speech, and it's not frivolous as far as student-group rhetoric goes.

-- Alex

 

[sneakypenguin]

Atheism is not something that should be forced upon other people, it's a decision that they must come to themselves of their own accord and journey. That being said, I think I just disproved the existence of a Christian God:

Spoiler

But according to the Bible God gave man a free will, and the free reign to do as he pleases. So that argument isn't quite up to par.

I think you missed the point, it is a statement asking why you would worship a god that is such a dick like the Abrahamic one.

Because I don't see God as a dick, Him giving man free will isn't evil. Fallen man is just inherently evil "the heart is deceitfully wicked and who can know it". Heck dying for the redemption of man is a pretty selfless thing i'd say.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Atheism is not something that should be forced upon other people, it's a decision that they must come to themselves of their own accord and journey. That being said, I think I just disproved the existence of a Christian God:

Spoiler

But according to the Bible God gave man a free will, and the free reign to do as he pleases. So that argument isn't quite up to par.

Yes but the bible also says that the earth was created in 6 days by God. More away from simple bashing, if you read the bible you will notice that in the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament, whatever the fuck you want to call it) God is vengeful, God actually seems... Human. This kind of God does not seem like the kind of God to give us free reign unless he wants to watch us destroy ourselves as any omnipotent being could have been able to see from the start (eating the apple and the first murder of Able by Kane).

The God of the New Testament or Christian Scriptures, however, is a loving being that can do no wrong and, apparently, we can do no wrong by him - which would beg the question of who actually goes to hell if we are all forgiven by him - But getting back to your original statement, it IS up to par for you see that would mean that God is able yet not willing to prevent evil, you can't just say well he gave us free reign and use it as a defence when that is clearly covered as malevolence in that he wishes for us to destroy ourselves for his own sick pleasure (assuming we have the original Jewish God).

 

[ike42]

Atheism = statement on if a person believes a god to exist. (Do you believe?)
Agnosticism = statement on if a person knows if a god exists. (Do you know?)

Two complete different questions, really. Both are correct in their format.

Well,it's kind of what i wanted to say. My point is,give me concrete proof,and i'll believe in God. Untill then,i'll suppose we're on our own.

yeah, or at least a testable hypothesis or empirical evidence that holds up to real scientific study (not pseudoscience)