Atheists don't make me laugh challenge!

Ha!

Well, its been good having a civilized debate, and I know I over react sometimes as well. So, I apologize if I offended you in anyway or misconstrued your argument.

What is meant by "tolerance" here. I will tolerate and defend someone making claims I know to be false: i.e. "there is a god" (theism) or "my mind represents the sum total contents of the universe" (solipsism); but I will not agree with those positions. I will argue and make my own claims.

I do not think tolerance means to accept or be silent about claims you disagree with.

Tolerance is simply keeping the discussion civil, and pledging not to threaten physical harm. Blowing up a bus is intolerant. Claiming there is no god, and no good reason for belief in god, is not in itself intolerant.

peace

unimatrix0, that might be one of the first (and I will adamantly assert the last!) time I'll agree with you and suggest you raise a very good question. What is tolerance...

If we tolerated the abuse of others, we would find ourselves alone when it came time to defend ourselves. If we are idle and say nothing when a wrong is done, by doing nothing, we have done wrong.

Civil debate is the best way to communicate between differing opinions. I do not ask that you be silent, although I do find it grating to hear you say you know some absolute truth, when you do not. By the way, I do not suggest that my mind represents the sum total of the contents of the universe. I am a firm believer in externalist objectivism. I believe that objective phenomenon external to ourselves are what we observe and that our conceptualization of those observations are internalist in nature.

Overall, I do not ask you to not share your own opinion, but we can share opinions while respecting the opinions of others. To call someone else's opinion moronic, while that is your belief of it, is only your belief. I'm not trying to assert any absolute truth of the matter, but my own observations. I simply ask the same respect. While you can assert that you disagree, to do so respectfully is to be tolerant.

Edit: Just in case it wasn't evident, I was harassing you with the comment about being adamant that it is the last. I'm sure there are a great deal of things we can agree on, but that's no fun.

Unimatrix.

When I speak of tolerance. I speak of the human construction of tolerance in both the law and the human ideal it represents. Our law allows for religous freedoms and the freedom to disavow it. When Thomas Jefferson wrote his universal decleration of the rights of man he bagan. Where as god hath made a mind free. When Clarence Darrow spoke of freedom in the scopes monkey trial he spoke of it from a biological perspective comparing humanity to a sponge and demanding the right to think a free thought. Religous thought is still free thought and I demand the right to be different from a sponge. I demand the right to think like Jefferson. I balk at your universal decleration unimatrix but I believe strongly in your freedom of choice. Where I differ is with your assertion that there is no choice the same as I would balk at a religous proselytizer making that claim. You are the atheist equivalent of a fundamentalist Shiite Imam. People like Jefferson and Darrow helped us to understand that humanity is uplifted when we acknowledge our humanity and seek to hold no one subservient to our ideals. Jefferson even thought no generation should exude control oven another through the ages. When we seek to advance the personal liberties of others we advance our own. That is tolerance and that is worth celebrating.

ocanada,

your need to call me names reveals the poverty of your position and your faith.

I am not atempting to make any assertion of superiority for any position save the virtue of personal liberty. What I am arguing is that the absolutist asertion is stifling and inhumane. I did not call you names I compared your idealogy to its theist equivalent. If insults were amunition to decry a philosophy as impverished your posts here would place your argument into a rhetorical gutter. Please reaximing the insults you have levied before you make such a claim though its generaly one I would agree with and should insist that if we were to continue civil debate that the absence of insults should be the rule rather than the exception.

ocanada,

use a spell check - you embarrass yourself.

have the balls to say you are defending your faith and that is why you attack atheists.

your constant attacks reveal that you are simply defending your faith, no matter how much you protest otherwise.

your plea for civility is simply a pathetic request to not have your religious beliefs challenged.

You can't prove the non-existence of god( not that i believe, but you must understand that you can't disprove the existence of such a creature, though it's inconsequential either way). Additionally, this is a broad and somewhat bigoted statement "God is a crutch for the existentially weak and the feeble minded". There are plenty of intelligent folks who believe in a god( Ben Franklin for instance, he was a deist though).

I do agree with this statement however "Abandon the darkness of religious superstition."

You know, you do make atheists look like extremists. I mean no offense and I generally agree with you on most subjects.

The atheist need not disprove god or pink unicorns. Indeed, a foundation of logic is that one can not prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that god exists; just as the burden of proof would be on one who claims there are pink unicorns.

I know I am offensive on this topic. It is calculated and with purpose. I do not claim to speak for all atheists, only myself.

If you don't agree with me that is OK!

"If you don't agree with me that is OK!" And that makes all the difference between us and many theists. Its always a pleasure chatting with you.

I'm a theist and I'm not telling you to believe. I'm simply arguing that it is ignorant and shameful to attack the beliefs of others... Particularly if you do not have any way of disproving the beliefs of others, or have no understanding of their beliefs to begin with. To generalize that all theists are close-minded and trying to force you to believe as they do is to generalize and play the same game they do.

I argue for rising above the fray, and understanding the validity of the viewpoints involved. Why not try to come away with something of value from engaging debate rather than simply denying everything off-hand, and perpetuating the generalizations and hostility.

libre,

We have been around the block too many times. I know you are not some bible thumping ignoramus.

Did you look at Plato's "seventh letter" - where he talks about the flame on the candle? Or did you look at Wittgenstein's "Lecture on Ethics"? I am curious what you think, since you have expressed an interest in academic philosophy before.

Atheists do not deny love. To conflate love and god is simply moronic.

"Atheists and theists both require faith to assert their claim because neither can affirm their belief"...etc

I think we have a different understanding of the definitions for atheism and agnosticism.

Atheism is simply, by definition, the lack of belief in a deity. There are different categories (or degrees) of atheism ranging from skepticism to downright militant fanaticism. Although, the latter really is the minority, as it requires, just as you put it...faith that there is no god.

Agnosticism, much like skeptical atheism, is defined by a lack of belief. It goes one step further however and basically states that if there is a god, said god is unknowable. For whatever reason, if there is a god we could never understand it's nature.

I label (as much as I dislike labels) myself as a skeptical atheist.

@librellover

1. "Atheists and theists both require faith to assert their claim because neither can affirm their belief. Agnostics simply suggest they do not know."

Agnostics are atheists.

2."remove the concept of love beyond it being a description of chemical/genetic motivation to procreate and protect."

Love is still love, even if it is just a chemical reaction, and to state that atheism denies the concept of love is foolish.

"For those who suggest they need definitive proof, they really should label themselves agnostic. It is a far more logically consistent position. Atheism, should be reserved for those who definitively take faith in the lack of a God."

This is a really common debate point that gets brought up over and over again. I'd like to disagree. Atheists do not have to be 100% sure that god does not exist nor closed minded to the possibility. Anything is POSSIBLE, and atheists know this- it's probability we should be talking about. Most atheists don't believe in any gods and think it's highly improbable that any of them exist. Atheism is defined by a lack of believe in gods, so that's why I would choose that label over agnostic. The agnostic position is one of "I don't know" but frequently also includes "and I don't think we CAN know whether or not god exists".

Basically, I'm not in the habit of telling others how they should label themselves, and the agnostic vs atheist thing is really up to the person to choose which one they feel they identify more with.

As far as love goes, I have no problem "believing" in love for what it is- a concept. I don't suppose that love is some sort of entity or supernatural being. I think that "god "is a conceptual way for us to describe things we can't fully explain, but not that any gods actually exist past the human mind and imagination.

I fail to see the difference between your agnosticism and atheism. There is a difference between the two. A basic religions course should illustrate that. To suggest otherwise is to show an extremely neophyte understanding of the concepts.

If love is simply a chemical reaction to you, then you are endorsing the point I made. I did not say that atheists deny love. I said they deny that love is anything more than a concept to explain our chemical/genetic need for procreation and protection. If you are comfortable with that, then what is the problem?

Considered the neutrality of my observations, and the fact that I was simply illustrating the differences between theism, agnosticism, and atheism, why have the responses included terms like, "moronic" and "foolish"? Before you go calling others such things, please let me know what education you have of these concepts. Have you taken a basic epistemology course? Have you taken any religions courses? What about philosophy courses? Can you debate the concepts of Hume, Locke, Descartes, Sextus Empiricus, etc.?

"Have you taken a basic epistemology course? Have you taken any religions courses? What about philosophy courses? Can you debate the concepts of Hume, Locke, Descartes, Sextus Empiricus, etc.?"

To answer your questions (which really are just red herrings, just because someone does not have the same level of education does not mean that they aren't correct). No, yes, yes, and somewhat.

"If love is simply a chemical reaction to you, then you are endorsing the point I made. I did not say that atheists deny love."

First, you assume to much, I stated even IF love is just a chemical reaction." "If' being the key word. Additionally, you are insinuating that atheists reject a more romantic concept of love.

"Atheists should take into account though, that they deny any conceptual belief system that is beyond observation..."

Again, another incorrect statement, atheists don't necessarily "deny any conceptual belief system"; humanism can be a conceptual belief system, as can Buddhism, both of which may contain atheists. The fact is that you are currently making wide generalizations about atheists, as if we had some sort of code/religion/belief. I think your confusing the philosophical concept of skepticism(or maybe empiricism) to a certain degree with atheism.

Libre, I believe that Delia and I both adequately described the differences between atheism and agnosticism. But I'll try again, in bulleted format:

* Theism - belief in a god

* Atheism - no belief in a god (NOT to be confused
with belief that there is no god)

* Agnosticism - Belief that god (if god exists) is
unknowable

"I fail to see the difference between your agnosticism and atheism. There is a difference between the two. A basic religions course should illustrate that. To suggest otherwise is to show an extremely neophyte understanding of the concepts." There is a difference. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. What I said is that I'm not into the habit of telling people how to label themselves. If you take this is a "neophyte understanding of these concepts" so be it.

Your narrow description of love is not one that I would fully endorse, because you seem to be oversimplifying it a bit much for me personally.

First, there are a great deal of things that I have a neophyte understanding of. I'm not suggesting that you are, but I am warning against being to proud to admit when you have a neophyte understanding of something. That simply means that you have a basic grasp of the concept, probably little formal training in it. I'm also not saying that you are a neophyte in any particular way except that the explanation given was a bit neophyte. It wasn't to offend, and you have every right to elucidate your explanation to further clarify it.

As to the concept of love, we could write volumes about the concept of love. They would simply add to the volumes already written. I was using the concept of love as an illustration. It can be seen as an abstract concept to identify one's feelings for something, or it can be explained as chemical attraction to something for a particular purpose. In the case of love for another person, it could be the genetic need to procreate and protect for the procurement of further generations, or you could love a thing because it produces euphoric sensations brought about from a chemical release in your brain.

The more abstract emotional concept of love is very much an equivalent to the allegorical rabbit hole. We can discuss the emotional concept of love. It is a subject that is very much worth any time given to it, and is always a good subject to talk about. As of yet, I have not really illustrated my view on love. I have simply made stated an argument using the concept.

I would be ashamed to admit I believed is superstitious non-sense.

There is no god. god is a crutch for the existentially weak and the feeble minded. Throw away your crutch and walk into the light of reason and truth. Abandon the darkness of religious superstition.

"I can't believe that everything I see around me accidentally materialized out of particles and cosmic soup." So it's easier to believe that an all-powerful, super natural entity that always existed made everything?

Hmm.

jc, if you believe, then you do well to say so publicly. I believe too -- just not in a god or gods. And I'm proud to say so.

BTW, "atheism" means not believing in a god. If there is no god, then atheists are right. If there is a god, then atheists are wrong. Atheism does not need a god in order to exist. Quite the contrary.

Can't help thinking of Wallace Stevens' wonderful poem "High-Toned Old Christian Woman." (Warning: Stevens writes for an audience that knows what words like "peristyle" mean.)

Poetry is the supreme fiction, madame.
Take the moral law and make a nave of it
And from the nave build haunted heaven. Thus,
The conscience is converted into palms,
Like windy citherns hankering for hymns.
We agree in principle. That's clear. But take
The opposing law and make a peristyle,
And from the peristyle project a masque
Beyond the planets. Thus, our bawdiness,
Unpurged by epitaph, indulged at last,
Is equally converted into palms,
Squiggling like saxophones. And palm for palm,
Madame, we are where we began. Allow,
Therefore, that in the planetary scene
Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed,
Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade,
Proud of such novelties of the sublime,
Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk,
May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves
A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres.
This will make widows wince. But fictive things
Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince.

Atheism is just a label. So yes the word atheism wouldn't exist if no one believed in god, but if no one believed in god everyone would be "atheists".

All evidence of things not seen is assumed. Universal statement.

Indeed! Great response.

The only thing any of us know is that we are observing existence from our own cognitive standpoint. God should not be looked at as one entity or another. Why can't all the conceptions of God or gods be different attempts at cognitively formalizing a way of communicating about the culmination of events that make up existence?

Why can't science itself be a way of cognitively formalizing the mechanisms of our existence and the correlations we have observed between phenomenon?

I'm curious, how many of the people here arguing against general theism have any formal education in the multitude of religions and/or religious concepts in the modern world? I'm just wondering what percentage of the atheists, and I'm not assuming all, are actually arguing from a fairly ignorant standpoint.

That depends on what you mean from "fairly ignorant" viewpoint! I'd say many atheists (myself included) have researched many religions and continue to do so today. Being an atheist does not mean you stop learning about belief systems and different philosophies and spiritual paths.

"Why can't all the conceptions of God or gods be different attempts at cognitively formalizing a way of communicating about the culmination of events that make up existence?" They most certainly are. That doesn't mean that any of them actually exist outside of our human imagination!

There's nothing "cowardly" about believing you're in control of your own life.

How about people who believe in the afterlife because they're afraid of death being the absolute end? Wouldn't that be "cowardly"? Because I definitely have met people who are comforted about the idea of heaven and hell since it allows them to feel their loved ones are never gone and doesn't make them feel like they'll ever really die.

Also, since when do atheists not believe in love and kindness? I'm an athiest, and I believe in love, kindness, hate, cruelty, joy, sorrow, etc. Those feelings and actioins are all very real, regardless of a higher power.

No offense, but this is ignorant. I don't think that any of those points necessarily follow from being atheist, with the possible exception of number 1.

I believe you may be engaging in self-justification.

peace

wizzle,
Your naive and simple minded attack only makes the point - it takes courage to be an atheist. When one stands up for atheism they are attacked.

You clearly don't understand atheism. Please, understand the atheists simply don't believe in god. All the other stuff you imposed on top is not atheism; atheists choose how they feel about things like consequences and 'the afterlife', the origin of the universe, etc. Most atheists turn to science but there is no dogma or belief system that comes along with atheism.

Why can we not elevate the standards? Is there no possibility of bettering ourselves with new understanding? What harm is caused by the seeking of Truth? Do we not benefit eachother with Unique spheres of knowledge? How will we ever discover what lies down these avenues if we never dare to tread?

one mans truth is another mans fiction.

this is by far the best reply ive ever heard in response to retarded religious mumbo jumbo

"this is by far the best reply"

thumbs up unimatrix0

Did you just say it was solved by a theory of some random guys? That's laughable...

@theaftoo

No, it really isn't laughable, its what we call science, which gave you the computer that you type from. I suggest that you don't laugh or mock what you don't understand. Also, you have yet to address the other answers.

Self-assembling seems to be pretty misleading. First, there had to be conditions for those ribosomes to be able to assemble themselves, they had to be coded to do such, and the materials from which they assembled had to exist. I still don't see how the development of scientific understanding of how the mechanisms of this existence work somehow necessitates the elimination of the conceptual understanding of the summation of all things under the entity that is God.

To suggests that anyone knows the answer with any definitive proof would suggest that they somehow have an understanding of the infinite complexities of existence. For me, theism is not a threatening concept to have incorporated in my understanding of existence, and plays very nicely with the science that explains the mechanisms of how this existence operates.

For those who suggest they need definitive proof, they really should label themselves agnostic. It is a far more logically consistent position. Atheism, should be reserved for those who definitively take faith in the lack of a God. Atheists and theists both require faith to assert their claim because neither can affirm their belief. Agnostics simply suggest they do not know. Where atheists have a legitimate claim is that they deny any theist explanation of existence, and simply reserve physical evidence and observation to explain reality.

The feud is really between the fundamentalist/literalist translations of theism, and the literal translations of observation (atheism). Atheists should take into account though, that they deny any conceptual belief system that is beyond observation, which does technically remove the concept of love beyond it being a description of chemical/genetic motivation to procreate and protect.

Please notice that I'm not saying anyone should choose any one path. I'm saying that anyone that asserts they have choosen a path should be able to at least understand why they've chosen their path for themselves. None of us should have to conform to anyone else's beliefs for any reason beyond our own confirmation of said beliefs.