Something I think bares reading.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe it is, but who cares? At the end of the discussion, you still think gods and goddesses don't exist.

Well, see, that's just it. There is a section of atheists (or agnostics, depending on who you ask) that have neither a belief that gods exist, nor a belief that gods don't exist. They are in some nebulous middle ground belonging to those who are reserving judgment, and to those who just can't be bothered to care enough to make a choice.

^-.-^

[BigGiant]

Great discussion. I haven't read all of the posts (started skimming when the arguments about semantics started).

I'd like to add my $.02.

I am an atheist. I think I have a simpler view than what has been discussed so far.

First off, as far as the idea of religion doing more harm than good:

I don't buy it. In general, things done in the name of religion, for the most part are just that. What I mean is, the things that are done (both good or bad- regardless of your definition) would have been done anyway. Religion is just the justification folks use to do them. If there were no religion, these things would have been done anyway, and a different justification would have been found.

I see this all the time. You can also apply it to the argument of atheism doing good or harm.

Folks love to use religion as a justification for their actions- it is very convenient.

This doesn't make religion itself bad. As I said, those folks would just find something else to use. It isn't any different than Nationalism, Racism, or most any other -ism for that matter.

[Ghel]

Look, here's the central point. Even if "atheism" is defined as "a belief there are no gods," that doesn't make the theist's claims any more correct. All an atheist has to do is listen to a theist's claims and say "I don't believe it." The atheist doesn't have to do anything more, except wait for the theist to convince him. So even if the atheist believes there are no gods, his or her position is still a reaction to the claims of theists, nothing more.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think that Atheism is still a decision. Its still a position, not a reaction. You might as well classify religion as a reaction of atheism. They're still answers.

And I agree with Big Giant. I think, honestly, for the most part, things done in the name of religion could, and in some cases would, have been done without religion. The same applies to things done in the name of atheism. I do not think either side has done more harm than good. I think they're both about equal.

[Gravekeeper]

All an atheist has to do is listen to a theist's claims and say "I don't believe it." The atheist doesn't have to do anything more, except wait for the theist to convince him. So even if the atheist believes there are no gods, his or her position is still a reaction to the claims of theists, nothing more.

The problem is, you can reverse "atheist" and "theist" in this thought. You may try to argue that atheist is scientifically grounded, but a theist is still going to sit and wait for you to convince them there is no <insert deity here> just as much as you're waiting for them to convince you. It doesn't matter whether or not you think this is reasonable or logical, both sides have their convinctions and will cling to their position just as hard.

When it comes to such matters as religion, faith and spirituality, people with strong convinctions honestly do not give up their viewpoint unless a lifechanging event occurs. Hence people who have near death experiences often overcompensate religiously after surviving it. You're not going to convince someone who feels God is important that he doesn't exist, anymore than they'll convince you that he does. Thus is the nature of the beast.

Being atheist is not a reaction to theists, its a conclusion based on scientific knowledge. Which is perfectly fine.

[Rapscallion]

The problem is, you can reverse "atheist" and "theist" in this thought. You may try to argue that atheist is scientifically grounded, but a theist is still going to sit and wait for you to convince them there is no <insert deity here> just as much as you're waiting for them to convince you.

Not quite. From my viewpoint, I'm not saying there's something unknowable about the world. I'm seeing people claiming there's an invisible friend that everyone should obey and worship. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

If an atheist tries to argue this, it's usually something equally unknowable thrown back - it's not part of said divinity's plan. Said divinity chose not to do anything this time.

James Randi had a great piece on this during his lectures. Prove that reindeer can fly, a la pulling a sled. Put it to scientific test and you're going to end up with a load of dead reindeer pushed off a building. Maybe they couldn't fly, or maybe they chose not to this time, or maybe it's only a dozen or so reindeer at the secret location that's maybe near the north pole.

The burden of proof should be on those making the claim, not the other way around.

Rapscallion

[Ipecac Drano]

The burden of proof should be on those making the claim, not the other way around.

True. Rather than sending people on a wild goose chase, the proponents should come forward with evidence. If someone were to tell me that the trunk of their car is filled with gold bullion, I shouldn't be expected to pry the door open. The guy making the claim should have his trunk key out and ready to use.

[Mytical]

Proof is not faith. Faith is not proof. If there was proof, it would not be faith, but fact. *shrugs*

[Gravekeeper]

Not quite. From my viewpoint, I'm not saying there's something unknowable about the world. I'm seeing people claiming there's an invisible friend that everyone should obey and worship. The burden of proof is on those making the claims.

I think you missed my point. I didn't say anything about who has the burden of proof or who should have the burden of proof ( I think thats been debated to death on the forum so far >.>). Heck, I specifically said it doesn't matter whether or not you think this is reasonable or logical. I said a theist may have the same viewpoint towards an atheist as an atheist has towards a theist. It doesn't matter if you think that viewpoint is illogical, it doesn't stop the viewpoint from existing.

Both sides basically require an absolute proof to back off of their convictions. But since science isn't going to finish discovering every last shred of our reality anytime soon to declare absolutely no sky wizards are hiding anywhere. And no sky wizards are going to wander onto CNN anytime soon to join a round table on immigration reform. Niether side is going to give up their convictions any time soon.

People don't just change their convictions on such things without some sort of major or life changing event involved. Whether atheists like it or not, they are equal to religion in one sense: You're not going to "convert" someone to your viewpoint by handing out pamphets at a bus stop.

[draco664]

Some commentary I read some time ago here.

In short, though the site is pretty blatant in its aims, it does raise doubts over the authenticity of the claims.

Rapscallion

Yeah, you'd reckon that a tall chap with long, flowing blond hair and a well trimmed beard would stand out a bit more in the Middle East two thousand years ago. Surely someone would have made comment.

[Ghel]

Proof is not faith. Faith is not proof. If there was proof, it would not be faith, but fact. *shrugs*

And how do you convince somebody your faith is correct? Most Christians believe they need to tell the world about their religion, if only to prevent those people from ending up in Hell. So how do you convince someone who doesn't have faith?

Niether side is going to give up their convictions any time soon.

People don't just change their convictions on such things without some sort of major or life changing event involved.

This isn't entirely true. Here in the US, at least, most atheists were once theists (usually Christians, but that's only because Christians are the majority in the US). People change their philosophy for all sorts of reasons. It could be, as you say, a life-changing event, or it could be as simple as reading a book that gives you a different perspective. Frequently, when a person enters college and learns about things like the burden of proof, scientific method, and standards of evidence, they will see that the religion they were brought up with is unfounded. Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Whether atheists like it or not, they are equal to religion in one sense: You're not going to "convert" someone to your viewpoint by handing out pamphets at a bus stop.

Do you mean this literally? Because I've never heard of atheists doing this.

If you're referring to atheist advertisements, then I think you're missing the point of the ads. The main focus of the ads is to (1) let atheists know that they're not alone, that they don't have to hide their lack of belief, and (2) to let theists know that not everybody shares their beliefs, which many theists find to be an insult on its own.

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't entirely true. Here in the US, at least, most atheists were once theists (usually Christians, but that's only because Christians are the majority in the US). People change their philosophy for all sorts of reasons. It could be, as you say, a life-changing event, or it could be as simple as reading a book that gives you a different perspective.

People with strong convinctions aren't goint to be swayed by reading a book. They may, however, become disenchanted with their faith due to events in their life. This is fairly big danger if you've been told your entire life you can cash in your virtue chips for Jesus Points by saving sinners and what not. Then something rather Bad(tm) happens to you.

Frequently, when a person enters college and learns about things like the burden of proof, scientific method, and standards of evidence, they will see that the religion they were brought up with is unfounded.

College is a major life event and can change your perspective, however, no offence, but if this occured "frequently" atheists would be a much much larger portion of the population. As is they are tiny % of the US population. Which, extremely sadly, seem to be viewed negatively even more than Muslims in the US. ><

Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Frankly, this will rarely if ever work ( and is also disrespectful I might add ). People become more resistent to an opposing viewpoint when you do this. Quite literally, the harder or more disrespectfully you try to convince someone their wrong ( in any sense ) the more the average person will actually believe they're right. Even if they aren't.

Do you mean this literally? Because I've never heard of atheists doing this.

No, I don't mean it literally.

If you're referring to atheist advertisements, then I think you're missing the point of the ads.

I'm not.

(2) to let theists know that not everybody shares their beliefs, which many theists find to be an insult on its own.

But now that you mention it, there's your pamphlet. >.>

[Ghel]

People with strong convinctions aren't goint to be swayed by reading a book. They may, however, become disenchanted with their faith due to events in their life.

I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christian to atheist in one step. But little steps, such as from fundamentalist, to moderate, to agnostic (as the term is most often used), to atheist, can and do happen. And yes, sometimes it happens from reading books.

College is a major life event and can change your perspective, however, no offence, but if this occured "frequently" atheists would be a much much larger portion of the population. As is they are tiny % of the US population.

I meant "frequently" to mean as a portion of those who started out life as theists and later became atheists. And since the more educated people are, the less religious they are likely to be, I think that holds up.

Frankly, this will rarely if ever work ( and is also disrespectful I might add ).

Disrespectful to the belief, not the person. Besides, you don't seem to have a problem with making fun of a group of people based on what they say or how they behave. I don't see it as any different to make fun of people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as to make fun of people who don't know how to spell their own name.

But now that you mention it, there's your pamphlet. >.>

Right, because saying "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." is the same as saying that an evil man who believes in Christ will go to Heaven, while a good man who doesn't will get tortured forever in Hell.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not talking about fundamentalist Christian to atheist in one step. But little steps, such as from fundamentalist, to moderate, to agnostic (as the term is most often used), to atheist, can and do happen. And yes, sometimes it happens from reading books.

Books, perhaps, over the years. The original statement was singular however.

I meant "frequently" to mean as a portion of those who started out life as theists and later became atheists. And since the more educated people are, the less religious they are likely to be, I think that holds up.

That holds up when speaking about religious fundementalism. However, when you broaden it out to spiritual/agnostist, it doesn't hold up. Just because someone isn't religious, doesn't mean they're an atheist either.

Disrespectful to the belief, not the person.

So if I told you that you were going to burn in Hell in a lake of fire for being an atheist, that would be totally fine because I'm just being disrespectful to your viewpoint, not your person?

I don't see it as any different to make fun of people who believe Noah's flood actually happened as to make fun of people who don't know how to spell their own name.

You...can't make a distinction there? One is basic education, the other is someone's belief system. Noah's flood may seem silly to both of us, but if thats what someone believe's in then fine. They have a right to do so and I will respect that. That's quite different from someone that can't spell their own name while trying to do something that they knew would require them to spell their own name. That's just good ol' everyday stupidity.

Right, because saying "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." is the same as saying that an evil man who believes in Christ will go to Heaven, while a good man who doesn't will get tortured forever in Hell.

Nice incredibly selective examples there ( Isn't chick tract the ones convinced D&D players can really cast spells? -.- ). Let's try these instead: "Enjoy Life Now. There is NO afterlife" or "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Despite the tongue in cheek attempt, they both say "You're wrong to believe in what you do". Which frankly isn't any different than the other sides billboards. You're both telling people what they should believe in a public forum. So yes, you have pamphlets too.

Here's a novel idea, why don't we all just respect what everyone else believes and agree that its a personal thing that should be keep the fuck off of public streets & public transit and in the privacy of our own homes? And before you start a "The other side does it" argument, just because there's Listen to Jeebus or Burn in HELL billboards, doesn't mean anyone else should sink to the same level.

[Hyena Dandy]

Or it could be that the person was professing their faith, and somebody pointed out how ridiculous their statements were by making fun of them - that could lead someone to investigate their own beliefs as well.

Do you honestly think that will ever work?