Religion and Lack of Religion

[Phantom]

Hey TCoAtheists.

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate argument against theism?

Go!

The Bible.

 

[hopeandjoy]

You guys must have bad priests or something; I'm an atheist and I love my mom's priest.

Of course, that church is so open that at midnight mass Christmas Eve, they had some gay couples.

 

[Elliekat]

Lately, I don't know what to believe about my religion (I'm Christian) anymore. I was confirmed when I was 13, and everything was fine with me then, but now I've just been questioning things more and more. I'm not very spiritual, but I live in a family of very spiritual conservative people, and then there's me, the flaming liberal (thanks, tCoD) who tries not to let religion get in the way too much. The people in my church just seem so wrong about a bunch of things ('Europe is going downhill because it's too secular and has free healthcare!' 'In the Bible it basically says that being gay is wrong!' etc.) and I'm just wondering if maybe I need to take a break and let it slide for a while until I get my bearings on all this. Of course, my parents still force me to go to church and Sunday school every week, and they would quite probably kill me if I said I didn't want to for a while. Ahh, why is everything so confusing?!

 

[bulbasaur]

I got baptized just a few months ago. There was a lot of pressure involved in that decision from many parties, and in the end, I was convinced. I was happy for a few weeks until I had doubts. I still attend church every week, and even if I had a choice, I would, just to hear their view on things.

When I stated to my dad that I didn't want to be Christian anymore, at least until I could think it over, he cut me off before I could finish and told me, "That's between you and God."

I find the idea of the existence of an architect equally feasible as the non-existence thereof. The real killer for me is that I don't "sense" or "feel" God anywhere; not when I pray, not when I'm in church, not when I'm dreaming. The best support, for me, for the theory of Christianity, is the extreme improbability of the Bible being fabricated.

 

[ultraviolet]

Hey TCoAtheists.

What, in your opinion, is the ultimate argument against theism?

Why is God (or theism) a better explanation for things we don't understand than "I don't know"? If you approach life happily admitting that you really have no idea what happens after death, for example, why is that inferior to theism? In the end, don't all questions lead to "I don't know" anyway?

 

[Karkat Vantas]

I laughed at him. (In my head. I don't want to be expelled....)

This is a pretty accurate summary of what I did every day in Sunday school.

~~~

There is no ultimate argument against theism in general. Arguments against Christianity? Yes. But Christianity =/= theism.

Ultimately we can't prove anything about religion, really...

 

[Music Dragon]

You don't need an argument against theism, you just need the lack of arguments for it.

 

[Aobaru]

There is no ultimate argument against theism in general. Arguments against Christianity? Yes. But Christianity =/= theism.

Isn't Christianity a subset of theism?

Okay then, what about Christianity specifically? What's the best argument against Christianity?

 

[Coroxn]

I do believe in God, it's just, I absolutely (thank you, Absol, for teaching me how to spell that word) HATE people who ignore the other argument entirely. I can deal with Theists and Atheists, but biased theists and biased atheists can rot in the possibly existent hell.

I mean, the "Creationists Give A Tour Of The Natural History Museum" thing riled me up, because as the blasted guide explained Stratigraphy was circular logic because "They say it's older because it's farther down, they say it's farther down because it's older. What is that? Yes, circular logic, circular logic" he turned his back on a Radiography poster that explained how scientists really date things.

I mean, senseless attacks just rile me up. I mean, the Thinking Atheist's youtube video, Top Ten Christian Arguments, Completely ignored points in it's attack on Christianity. They're just laughing and poking fun at what others believe in, ignoring some points that explain the case.

For example, one of the arguments they give is 'Atheism is a Religion'. "Yeah" they say, "In the same way not-smoking is a habit. Hahaha, stupid Christians!". They completely ignore the rest of the quote, which goes on to explain the statement:Atheists mock Theists for unquestioningly believing in what they're just told, when the majority of Atheists do this to-they find an argument and repeat it, without questioning it's validity or authenticity.

I hate people who just want to get a reaction out of others. They don't really believe anything, they just go out to insult.
Yeah, I hate them. Yes, God hates me hating them. But if he's aloud to hate me hating them, why am I not aloud to just hate them? Both sides are blurred and confused and the majority of them are just stupid people wanting to be different or cool or look intelligent.

Yeah, that worked.

 

[hopeandjoy]

And do you now what we atheists call those people? Assholes.

We're not all snarky bastards, dedicated to laughing at those stupid theists. Some of us just want to be left alone, and thus leave other alone.

 

[Tarvos]

I do believe in God, it's just, I absolutely (thank you, Absol, for teaching me how to spell that word) HATE people who ignore the other argument entirely. I can deal with Theists and Atheists, but biased theists and biased atheists can rot in the possibly existent hell.

Question: why is the other side of the argument relevant? We can listen to the other side's argument, but if their argument contains that in conventional arithmetic, two and two equals five, then we can shove it aside. For the same reason we shove aside "stork theory" when it comes to biological reproduction, and so on and so forth. Some theories aren't supposed to be taken seriously. Furthermore, atheist and theist aren't capitalised.

I mean, the "Creationists Give A Tour Of The Natural History Museum" thing riled me up, because as the blasted guide explained Stratigraphy was circular logic because "They say it's older because it's farther down, they say it's farther down because it's older. What is that? Yes, circular logic, circular logic" he turned his back on a Radiography poster that explained how scientists really date things.

Yeah, but we all know those type of people are all out to butcher more strawmen. I'm not even riled anymore. I just laugh and if I get the chance, punch them in the face. But riled? No.

I mean, senseless attacks just rile me up. I mean, the Thinking Atheist's youtube video, Top Ten Christian Arguments, Completely ignored points in it's attack on Christianity. They're just laughing and poking fun at what others believe in, ignoring some points that explain the case.

If I told you I believed in the green leprechaun that lives in a mushroom next door, you'd probably poke fun at me. That's because what I believe would be entirely ridiculous. Sure, it's all very mean that people go out of their way to insult the (non-)religious. But are you being mean to me if you tell me that the green leprechaun is just a myth and that he doesn't live in a red and white mushroom? Maybe you are. But you gotta understand that to atheists, believing in God is no different from my story about believing in leprechauns that live in mushrooms. There's no difference between the two. So please think about what YOU would do should you meet someone of such a religion, and whether you would poke fun at him. If you would, you have no case in this argument.

But to most people, these attacks aren't senseless. That's because they're not attacks, they're refutals of the things Christianity claims. If you're offended by someone not thinking along the same lines as you do; you are a pretty shallow person. Apart from that religious ideology is still claiming casualties every day. There are plenty of people out there that think there needs to be a stand against such a kind of thing. That is their good right as long as they remain civil.

Furthermore, I haven't seen that video. But there's plenty arguments people have used for Christianity, and all of them fall into a certain category. Most of these arguments are variations of the same logic (argument from personal incredulity, argument from morality, etc). In that case, a lot of arguments are ignored simply because they're variations on the same theme. Furthermore, Christians have put forth arguments that are just so ludicrous they don't deserve a response. Much like we discard, again, stork theory (meaning that babies were brought by storks, etc)

For example, one of the arguments they give is 'Atheism is a Religion'. "Yeah" they say, "In the same way not-smoking is a habit. Hahaha, stupid Christians!".

How is this a senseless attack? It's pretty true what they're saying. Atheism is defined as the "lack of religion". In that sense, they are pretty much correct. I don't see how they are offending Christians by offering to define atheism for what it is. Can you point out to me what exactly is insulting about this???

They completely ignore the rest of the quote, which goes on to explain the statement:Atheists mock Theists for unquestioningly believing in what they're just told, when the majority of Atheists do this to-they find an argument and repeat it, without questioning it's validity or authenticity.

I'm sure some atheists do this, but it's a very crude generalization to state that all of them do. Furthermore there is no dogmatic element to atheism: what coherent set of morals do atheists adhere to? I know many and for none of them they are exactly the same.

I hate people who just want to get a reaction out of others. They don't really believe anything, they just go out to insult.
Yeah, I hate them. Yes, God hates me hating them. But if he's aloud to hate me hating them, why am I not aloud to just hate them? Both sides are blurred and confused and the majority of them are just stupid people wanting to be different or cool or look intelligent.

Yeah, but the problem is that Christians yesterday and today have gone out of their way to convert people to an ideology they didn't want to be converted to, and punished them if they didn't agree. Same for other religious factions? You don't think there's a reason that people are a bit bitter towards religion? Some people have had their childhoods, lives, psyche ruined by religion. Some have lost their family or friends in the wars of religious fanatics. There's so much evil that has come from religion you need to understand there can't be such a thing as respect when it doesn't come from both sides. Sure some people want to just get a rise out of the religious, but most people don't care - they're just sick of the religious dominance and assert their qualms with religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing such a thing.

 

[ultraviolet]

I'm sure some atheists do this, but it's a very crude generalization to state that all of them do. Furthermore there is no dogmatic element to atheism: what coherent set of morals do atheists adhere to? I know many and for none of them they are exactly the same.

I completely agree; the only thing that atheists generally have in common is that they're not theist.

I have never understood how a lot of people seem to see atheism as an equivalent to theism, as though it's a religious stance or denomination; it's not. I don't know how it is for other atheists, but I have a complete lack of interest towards religion/God/etc and rarely think about any of those things; I rarely even think about my atheism. It's only when it's brought up in discussion or I meet someone openly religious that I actually think about the fact I'm an atheist. It's certainly not a certain way I live my life, I just don't believe in God and I don't really think much further into it unless I'm feeling thoughtful. Religious faith is something I don't have and don't want. That's all it is.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Isn't Christianity a subset of theism?

Yes, that's exactly what it is-- a subset. Arguments against Christianity cannot be used to deny theism in general precisely because of that.

Let's pretend for a moment that I make the argument that "the universe was created via the Big Bang, and therefore the Bible is wrong". Logical argument against Christianity? Yes. Logical argument against theism in general? No, because theism doesn't require you to believe that God created the universe.

I can't think of a good argument against theism in general, and if I could I probably wouldn't be a theist myself.

 

[shy ♡]

Being religious = religious ideology. Atheism = no religious ideology. Meaning, all religious people will share the fact that they have an ideology that makes no sense (floaty sky person, invisible pink unicorns, harry potter, whatever), whereas atheists will only share the fact that they don't believe it.

They completely ignore the rest of the quote, which goes on to explain the statement:Atheists mock Theists for unquestioningly believing in what they're just told, when the majority of Atheists do this to-they find an argument and repeat it, without questioning it's validity or authenticity.

The reason theists are made fun of for this is because you are not born religious, you are indoctrinated. You cannot be indoctrinated into a lack of something, i.e. atheism. I don't agree people should be made fun of for being religious, but I don't agree that people should be forced to be religious either; so when religion stops being shoved down everyone's throats, maybe I'll feel a bit worse about theists being made fun of.

Also can I just mention many atheists are first indoctrinated into theists, and then become atheists? So how can we possibly not consider or think about what atheism is, or just find an argument and repeat it?

 

[Music Dragon]

I can't think of a good argument against theism in general, and if I could I probably wouldn't be a theist myself.

Isn't the complete lack of evidence a good enough argument?

 

[Tarvos]

Also can I just mention many atheists are first indoctrinated into theists, and then become atheists? So how can we possibly not consider or think about what atheism is, or just find an argument and repeat it?

The God Delusion said it was about one in ten atheists that did this. So it's still quite little

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I completely agree; the only thing that atheists generally have in common is that they're not theist.

I have never understood how a lot of people seem to see atheism as an equivalent to theism, as though it's a religious stance or denomination; it's not. I don't know how it is for other atheists, but I have a complete lack of interest towards religion/God/etc and rarely think about any of those things; I rarely even think about my atheism. It's only when it's brought up in discussion or I meet someone openly religious that I actually think about the fact I'm an atheist. It's certainly not a certain way I live my life, I just don't believe in God and I don't really think much further into it unless I'm feeling thoughtful. Religious faith is something I don't have and don't want. That's all it is.

I personally ponder religion quite a bit and find it a very interesting subject to learn about. I've read the Bible a few times and was making a dent in the Qu'ran before my cousin "borrowed" it in retribution for me taking his old economics textbook without asking.

But that just emphasises uv's point more; uv, as an atheist, is completely indifferent to religion, where I, as an atheist, have a vested interest in learning about it. Some atheists, like myself, are total skeptics and will take any claims of supernatural or paranormal phenomenon with a liberally-applied truckload of salt, whereas other atheists, like my girlfriend, actually do believe in some sort of supernatural or paranormal level to existence.

Hell, I even have some beliefs that border on the religious (my very specific wishes about how I want to be buried, for example) which other atheists might find strange. Atheists don't have to be skeptics, rationalists or follow the scientific line on how the world works; there are plenty of atheistic religions. The only generalisation you can conceivably make of atheists is that they are not theists because that is the only criteria necessary to be considered atheistic.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Isn't the complete lack of evidence a good enough argument?

Complete lack of evidence... against what?

Theism is much too broad for there to be a "complete lack of evidence".

 

[Coroxn]

This seems to be your main point! Define religion. If your definition of religion simply is that religion a position on god-related issues regardless of if they involve god or supernatural things existing, yes, atheism is a religious stance.

That's not what you're doing, though! You say that atheism is religion because you argue it contains dogma, a trait reserved for religions, so it is a religion.

So please, explain, how is atheism dogmatic?

Please understand that this is not my quote, that I am just explaining that these Atheists (note my incorrect capitalization) on 'The Thinking Atheist' were not presenting the whole argument for some of their cases, which annoyed me. Most of their arguments are sound, I know personally many Christians who refute the accuracy of Carbon Dating, and it listed several more dating methods scientists used that gave the earth roughly the same age. It's just the taking an excerpt of a quote, ripped completely from context, just to poke fun at Theists (again, incorrect capitalization), is unjust and insipid. That's what I'm protesting against.

Question: why is the other side of the argument relevant? We can listen to the other side's argument, but if their argument contains that in conventional arithmetic, two and two equals five, then we can shove it aside. For the same reason we shove aside "stork theory" when it comes to biological reproduction, and so on and so forth. Some theories aren't supposed to be taken seriously. Furthermore, atheist and theist aren't capitalised.

I gave two examples, one being creationists poking holes in stratigraphy, stating that anything dated with it is incorrect, whilst turning their backs on an exhibit explaining Radiography. The second was Atheists using an out-of-context quote to mock Theists. Ignoring the full story when presenting it is bias. It matters because presenting only some of the facts gives you a corrupted world view, no matter how you look at.

If I told you I believed in the green leprechaun that lives in a mushroom next door, you'd probably poke fun at me. That's because what I believe would be entirely ridiculous. Sure, it's all very mean that people go out of their way to insult the (non-)religious. But are you being mean to me if you tell me that the green leprechaun is just a myth and that he doesn't live in a red and white mushroom? Maybe you are. But you gotta understand that to atheists, believing in God is no different from my story about believing in leprechauns that live in mushrooms. There's no difference between the two. So please think about what YOU would do should you meet someone of such a religion, and whether you would poke fun at him. If you would, you have no case in this argument.

There is no historical evidence to support your green leprechaun. Christians, however, have the documents of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonis, all respectable non-Christian historians with no connections who wrote about Jesus, all accounts fall in line with the gospels (without naming him the Son of God or miracles or suchforth).

And secondly, the basis for the two are completely different. One is a mythological creature which we here in Ireland would have seen by now and has no believers. The other is a religion which cannot be disproved without the aid of a time machine, but cannot be proved by anything short of divine.

But to most people, these attacks aren't senseless. That's because they're not attacks, they're refutals of the things Christianity claims. If you're offended by someone not thinking along the same lines as you do; you are a pretty shallow person. Apart from that religious ideology is still claiming casualties every day. There are plenty of people out there that think there needs to be a stand against such a kind of thing. That is their good right as long as they remain civil.

Furthermore, I haven't seen that video. But there's plenty arguments people have used for Christianity, and all of them fall into a certain category. Most of these arguments are variations of the same logic (argument from personal incredulity, argument from morality, etc). In that case, a lot of arguments are ignored simply because they're variations on the same theme. Furthermore, Christians have put forth arguments that are just so ludicrous they don't deserve a response. Much like we discard, again, stork theory (meaning that babies were brought by storks, etc)

Once again, I'm pointing to the Atheists who attack for the hell of it. Refuting is all well and good, but how many times have you heard someone online say 'Why do stupid Christians still believe in God'? How many times have you read the words 'Atheists, don't you know you're going to rot in hell?'? They are unbearable, just a endless wash of people making fun of the other side with little or no basis for their proposals.
Okay, so some Christians have proposed arguments that are ludicrous. Discard them. There is more than one sensible Christian who is capable of talking sense. Don't discard anything Christian on sight-just be sensible about it, read the text or listen to the argument before you voice an opinion on it.

How is this a senseless attack? It's pretty true what they're saying. Atheism is defined as the "lack of religion". In that sense, they are pretty much correct. I don't see how they are offending Christians by offering to define atheism for what it is. Can you point out to me what exactly is insulting about this???

What's insulting is the fact that they ripped a section of the quote out of context to mock theists.

I'm sure some atheists do this, but it's a very crude generalization to state that all of them do. Furthermore there is no dogmatic element to atheism: what coherent set of morals do atheists adhere to? I know many and for none of them they are exactly the same.

I'd like to point out these aren't my opinions, they're the opinions of the quoted.

Yeah, but the problem is that Christians yesterday and today have gone out of their way to convert people to an ideology they didn't want to be converted to, and punished them if they didn't agree. Same for other religious factions? You don't think there's a reason that people are a bit bitter towards religion? Some people have had their childhoods, lives, psyche ruined by religion. Some have lost their family or friends in the wars of religious fanatics. There's so much evil that has come from religion you need to understand there can't be such a thing as respect when it doesn't come from both sides. Sure some people want to just get a rise out of the religious, but most people don't care - they're just sick of the religious dominance and assert their qualms with religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing such a thing.

I'm sorry, but when was the last time someone was put to death for heresy? When was the last time someone said 'Convert or Die'? The Catholic church has changed it's stance hugely, and it is now far more open to other religions and far more able to respect them.

I accept that lives, childhoods and psyches have been destroyed by religion, but not by the believers-religion isn't something you can stab at by stabbing the people who believe, because often enough they were pretty much forced to, or took the opinions from their parents and the priests everyone respected to heart.

I don't believe for a second that the majority of people are just asserting qualms and don't care, I think that the inverse of what you have said is true. Certainly from my (admittedly limited) experience, the majority of non-believers in my classroom couldn't care less, and are just trying to look cool, pick on the Christian kids or cause trouble. Maybe this peters out in the adult world, maybe not.

Being religious = religious ideology. Atheism = no religious ideology. Meaning, all religious people will share the fact that they have an ideology that makes no sense (floaty sky person, invisible pink unicorns, harry potter, whatever), whereas atheists will only share the fact that they don't believe it.

The reason theists are made fun of for this is because you are not born religious, you are indoctrinated. You cannot be indoctrinated into a lack of something, i.e. atheism. I don't agree people should be made fun of for being religious, but I don't agree that people should be forced to be religious either; so when religion stops being shoved down everyone's throats, maybe I'll feel a bit worse about theists being made fun of.

Also can I just mention many atheists are first indoctrinated into theists, and then become atheists? So how can we possibly not consider or think about what atheism is, or just find an argument and repeat it?

'Many'?
Are you sure that the majority of atheists were Christians who threw of the supposed shackles of stupidity that is religion? In Ireland, we have mainly lost our religious focus, but are ability to have screaming matches at each other has not been marred. From my experience, anyways, Christians attack with whatever they picked up from being half-asleep at mass, Atheists using whatever they picked up from the internet.

 

[shy ♡]

I'm sorry, but when was the last time someone was put to death for heresy? When was the last time someone said 'Convert or Die'? The Catholic church has changed it's stance hugely, and it is now far more open to other religions and far more able to respect them.

You are minimizing. People don't have to die for religion to be imposed on them.

Kids are raised with religion, told that they are religious. They are sent to religious schools and indoctrinated. Whether they are killed if they stop believing doesn't matter - they have little choice of whether to believe or not, because religion is what they are taught. Since, as was pointed out, very few people who are taught religion from birth learn otherwise? It's basically imposed on anyone who is in a religious family. And you know what? People are killed because of religion, because people believe others do things that religion says is wrong. Also, Westboro Baptist Church says hi.

And since religion is such an institution, it is imposed on humanity. Nothing can get away from it. There has never been an American president who was not religious. To suggest otherwise, as it has been for several, is considered an insult and something that they had to avoid. If anyone who ran for president were an atheist, do you think they'd get elected?

And then people use religion as an argument for things. Against homosexuality, against being sexual in general; against anything they want, they will find it in their religion. The thing is, ideologies give people a reason to do things. Those things can be good or bad; with religion, it is often bad. When it is institutionalized, and it's bad? There is no excuse for it to continue.

'Many'?
Are you sure that the majority of atheists were Christians who threw of the supposed shackles of stupidity that is religion? In Ireland, we have mainly lost our religious focus, but are ability to have screaming matches at each other has not been marred. From my experience, anyways, Christians attack with whatever they picked up from being half-asleep at mass, Atheists using whatever they picked up from the internet.

For fuck's sake, christianity is not the only religion. And why do you insist on using improper grammar after you have acknowledged that it is improper?

Whether it is many or a few, it is still erasing to pretend we don't exist. I'm not sure what the rest of that paragraph is supposed to mean.