Religion and atheists

A place for mature discussion on religious and political philosophies.
User avatar
duhriddler
Posts: 22
Joined: 21 Nov 2010, 23:10

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by duhriddler » 04 Jul 2012, 00:12

Tulonsae wrote:So, if an atheist immediately jumps in - the first 2 responses were by atheists - then it would seem that they accept his context of God and reject god rather than disbelieve in god. Now, I accept that some atheists view it differently and will disagree with my thoughts here.
I would say that it's less a rejection of God and more a rejection of the context by stating disbelief in God. Like, if somebody made a thread "What is your stance on unicorns?" (and they weren't talking about My Little Pony for once, so operating from the context that unicorns exist), would it not be valid to say that you do not believe that they exist due to lack of evidence? Must every reply operate as if unicorns exist?
Tulonsae wrote:As for baiting people, I don't think that asi was. I've known many Christians like him. And they don't bait people. Their world view is just so totally steeped in what they believe in, that it's simply incomprehensible to them that anyone doesn't share it. Yes, it can be annoying to other people who don't share their view. But they're not doing it to upset people.
The whole thing reminds me of Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Image

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 02:58

Jake55778 wrote:
Tulonsae wrote:So, if an atheist immediately jumps in - the first 2 responses were by atheists - then it would seem that they accept his context of God and reject god rather than disbelieve in god.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction, if someone doesn't believe in God doesn't that already imply rejection?
Nope. To reject something you have to consider it a possibility. To not even consider something it at all is quite different.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
Jake55778
Site Contributor
Posts: 1568
Joined: 24 Mar 2011, 12:42
Location: England

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Jake55778 » 04 Jul 2012, 03:11

People don't become atheist in a vacuum. I think everyone has had at least some exposure to religion in their lifetime. The decision not to believe doesn't come without at least some consideration for the alternative.
The staff here are all trolls

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 03:15

Well, if someone made a thread on unicorns, I wouldn't bother to say anything. Why should I? I probably wouldn't be able to tell if they were talking about unicorns in general or My Little Pony (does that have unicorns?).

Now, if they said, Tulon, what do you think about unicorns? then maybe I would respond. You know, like to tell them I really wish artists would not put beards on unicorns. Yeah, it's probably more true to the legends, but I don't like how it makes them look like a cross between a horse and a billy goat.

So, I have to say I disagree with the tendency that many of you seem to have to think that every post is intended for you or addressed to you.

Now, perhaps asi did intend it as a way to express his beliefs to nonbelievers. I don't know. And, unless he said so, I don't think any of you know either. It's just speculation. But this thread is not about that. Here, I'm trying to understand why people I respect throw themselves into a subject that that seems to upset them so much.

@Furd, I am having trouble believing that you don't get my point. But maybe you are unable to understand it, since you yourself are doing exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to be insisting that everyone must understand the atheist perspective and therefore if they say anything that might offend an atheist, they're intentionally baiting the athesists. Another way to put it is: well, obviously since you have run into Christians, you must understand that they're really only trying to help you. How could you possibly not understand that?
--Tulonsae

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 03:18

Jake55778 wrote:People don't become atheist in a vacuum. I think everyone has had at least some exposure to religion in their lifetime. The decision not to believe doesn't come without at least some consideration for the alternative.
Religion does not equal god.

Hmm.... You're revealing a very western way of thinking. You do realize that there are religions that don't have god in them. So, for them, there's no god to reject or consider.

And, actually, I have met someone who managed to grow up in the US with so little exposure to western religion that she just didn't consider god as part of her world view. That was that weird thing that other people did or talked about.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 03:23

@duhriddler,

Sorry, I missed one part of your comment. Of course, no one has to respond as if everyone believed in unicorns. My point is - you don't have to respond. I often hear people say, "That's so ridiculous, I'm not going to even validate it by posting."

So, if you respond (well, in a serious fashion), then doesn't that mean that it's important enough in your world view to deserve a response?
--Tulonsae

haxxorzd00d
MasterBuilder
Posts: 1549
Joined: 28 Oct 2010, 17:17
Location: Gosport, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by haxxorzd00d » 04 Jul 2012, 04:05

Well, the OP in the original thread asked "When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?"

Atheists don't believe in God, so when they think of God, nothing should come to mind.

The concept of "nothing" has no physical manifestation or qualification and thus cannot be posted in a forum topic. (I'm sure 697 will correct me on this one.)

Therefore, an atheist logically shouldn't have had any response to that question other than the word "nothing", which would be a waste of a word, as well as an unnecessary skirting of common courtesy in discussion - the equivalent of posting 'don't care' in response to a topic.

In short, Tulon is right. In the interest of courtesy, a discussion about the nature of God's existence should be no place for an atheist.

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 10:43

haxxorzd00d wrote:Well, the OP in the original thread asked "When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?"

Atheists don't believe in God, so when they think of God, nothing should come to mind.

The concept of "nothing" has no physical manifestation or qualification and thus cannot be posted in a forum topic. (I'm sure 697 will correct me on this one.)

Therefore, an atheist logically shouldn't have had any response to that question other than the word "nothing", which would be a waste of a word, as well as an unnecessary skirting of common courtesy in discussion - the equivalent of posting 'don't care' in response to a topic.

In short, Tulon is right. In the interest of courtesy, a discussion about the nature of God's existence should be no place for an atheist.
Yes, I will correct you on that one. But not for the reasons you were thinking of.
Atheists are able to think of things other than... nothingness... when they think of god, much as you can hold opinions on characters in books and on television.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
J4Numbers
Numbers
Posts: 1308
Joined: 12 Oct 2011, 14:17
Contact:

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by J4Numbers » 04 Jul 2012, 11:08

I concur with 697s point above, also adding that agnostics are more prone to these opinions.
or rather they form slightly more concrete opinions.

User avatar
Furdabip
Poop
Posts: 982
Joined: 06 Jan 2011, 01:04
Location: Canadialand.
Contact:

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Furdabip » 04 Jul 2012, 11:40

Tulonsae wrote:@Furd, I am having trouble believing that you don't get my point. But maybe you are unable to understand it, since you yourself are doing exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to be insisting that everyone must understand the atheist perspective and therefore if they say anything that might offend an atheist, they're intentionally baiting the athesists. Another way to put it is: well, obviously since you have run into Christians, you must understand that they're really only trying to help you. How could you possibly not understand that?
I don't even get THIS point. MY point wasn't related to ignorance or denying anyone else's opinion about anything... just explaining why an atheist would reply, and how it led to the discussion it did because of how asi replied to such atheism. No atheist started commenting beyond the original topic until asi himself started questioning atheists.

However, the Christians I have run into that actually do something to make themselves known as such, have always been the annoyingly overzealous ones that say anti-gay, or pro-life, or whatever else bullshit. None have any aura of "I'm trying to help you" coming off of them. :-)

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 14:16

Well, furd, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think the first 2 posts (by atheists) were off topic. Perhaps that's what asi intended or perhaps not. And I understand from the atheists who posted here that they didn't think they were off topic.

And I'm sure that you didn't sense any aura from those Christians that they wanted to help. Just as I don't sense any aura from you that you want to understand what I'm saying.

So, let's just leave it with: you have your opinion, and I have mine.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 14:20

@679, @m477
In short, Tulon is right. In the interest of courtesy, a discussion about the nature of God's existence should be no place for an atheist.
What Haxx says is exactly my point.

To your points. Of course, athesists can think about more than nothing. However, by intruding into a discussion about the nature of god to declare he doesn't exist is - well, in my opinion, simply rude.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 14:24

m477h3w1012 wrote:I concur with 697s point above, also adding that agnostics are more prone to these opinions.
or rather they form slightly more concrete opinions.
Interesting. My first husband was an agnostic. I found that he formed less concrete opinions than either athesists or religious people. He tended to be wishy washy about such things.

I do know agnostics that are not wishy washy, though. They simply go by the "we don't know".

Which by the way, I consider "we don't know" a fact. And I consider my belief in the existence of god, well - a belief.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 14:28

Tulonsae wrote:@679, @m477
In short, Tulon is right. In the interest of courtesy, a discussion about the nature of God's existence should be no place for an atheist.
What Haxx says is exactly my point.

To your points. Of course, athesists can think about more than nothing. However, by intruding into a discussion about the nature of god to declare he doesn't exist is - well, in my opinion, simply rude.
It wasn't about the physical nature or lack thereof of god. It was
When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?
If the topic had not been changed before I even woke up, I may have responded to that question.


In response to your ninja post right above me:

Yes, we don't know is a fact. And what do we do when we don't know if a claim is true because there is no evidence for it? We assume it doesn't exist. We do that with all sorts of things, like leprechauns or unicorns.
Bertrand Russel wrote:I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 14:34

@697

I understand your point, but I disagree.
When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?
To me, this presupposes that you think of God. It doesn't say, what do you think of the concept of god. If you are thinking of god, then by default you think he exists. If you are thinking of the concept of god, then you may or may not think he exists.

As for your other comment, maybe you automatically think something doesn't exist when it's not a proven fact. But that's not how I think of things. I like to keep a much more open mind about things. And stick to the "it's not proven to exist". This allows me to be more neutral when concluding what data and facts might mean.

Edit: Just because that's my method for staying more neutral, I am not implying that you must use the same method or that you are not neutral.

Edit again: The "more" in my comment is a comparison to myself, not to you.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 14:47

Tulonsae wrote:@697

I understand your point, but I disagree.
When you think of God, what automatically comes to your mind?
To me, this presupposes that you think of God. It doesn't say, what do you think of the concept of god. If you are thinking of god, then by default you think he exists. If you are thinking of the concept of god, then you may or may not think he exists.

As for your other comment, maybe you automatically think something doesn't exist when it's not a proven fact. But that's not how I think of things. I like to keep a much more open mind about things. And stick to the "it's not proven to exist". This allows me to be more neutral when concluding what data and facts might mean.

Edit: Just because that's my method for staying more neutral, I am not implying that you must use the same method or that you are not neutral.
1: It's possible to think of something without it existing as more than a concept! What you said is basically saying that if I think of hitler in a monkey suit outside my house, he has to be there. I can think about Harry Potter without him needing to exist. I can think of Darth Vader without him needing to exist. I can critique the characters as shown in the books/movies. I can discuss the morality of their decisions at certain points. I can even say what comes to my mind when I think of them.

2: If it has not been proven to exist, then it it may as well not exist, as it has no effect on anything we can observe, save for a memetic one if it's one of the insanely small number of things we can imagine which do not exist. Unless you can take into account every single possibility (Impossible, as there are more possible explanations for any given phenomenon than neurons in the human brain), you are not being neutral. Being neutral with looking at facts involves skepticism.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 14:55

1. Ummm. No. I am saying that when you think of Hitler in a monkey suit outside your house, you are thinking of that as a concept. If you are thinking of it as existing, you are probably delusional. Harry Potter does exist. Harry Potter is a fictional character in several books and movies. You can go to nearly any book store and check imdb.com to see those facts.

2. That is most definitely not true. Things that we do not know exist could certainly be affecting us. We just haven't analyzed the data properly to figure it out. Or the data is unavailable to us with our current techniques/technology.

I said "more neutral" since I do not believe that anyone can be completely neutral. I tend to think in relative terms, not absolutes. And I probably look at facts with more skepticism than you do. I probably look at beliefs with far less skeptism than you do. Since it doesn't matter to me (most of the time) what other people believe. For my own beliefs, I attempt to analyze them thoroughly.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 15:00

Tulonsae wrote:1. Ummm. No. I am saying that when you think of Hitler in a monkey suit outside your house, you are thinking of that as a concept. If you are thinking of it as existing, you are probably delusional. Harry Potter does exist. Harry Potter is a fictional character in several books and movies. You can go to nearly any book store and check imdb.com to see those facts.

2. That is most definitely not true. Things that we do not know exist could certainly be affecting us. We just haven't analyzed the data properly to figure it out. Or the data is unavailable to us with our current techniques/technology.

I said "more neutral" since I do not believe that anyone can be completely neutral. I tend to think in relative terms, not absolutes. And I probably look at facts with more skepticism than you do. I probably look at beliefs with far less skeptism than you do. Since it doesn't matter to me (most of the time) what other people believe. For my own beliefs, I attempt to analyze them thoroughly.
1: You said that atheists cannot think of god without thinking that he exists.

2: I am not only talking about the causes of things; I was also talking about the effects. If we cannot observe any effect, it can be thought of as not existing.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 15:06

697134002 wrote:
Tulonsae wrote:1. Ummm. No. I am saying that when you think of Hitler in a monkey suit outside your house, you are thinking of that as a concept. If you are thinking of it as existing, you are probably delusional. Harry Potter does exist. Harry Potter is a fictional character in several books and movies. You can go to nearly any book store and check imdb.com to see those facts.

2. That is most definitely not true. Things that we do not know exist could certainly be affecting us. We just haven't analyzed the data properly to figure it out. Or the data is unavailable to us with our current techniques/technology.

I said "more neutral" since I do not believe that anyone can be completely neutral. I tend to think in relative terms, not absolutes. And I probably look at facts with more skepticism than you do. I probably look at beliefs with far less skeptism than you do. Since it doesn't matter to me (most of the time) what other people believe. For my own beliefs, I attempt to analyze them thoroughly.
1: You said that atheists cannot think of god without thinking that he exists.

2: I am not only talking about the causes of things; I was also talking about the effects. If we cannot observe any effect, it can be thought of as not existing.
1. Yes, I said that. I don't see any conflict with my other comments. Perhaps, I worded it unclearly?

2. I still stand by my statement. Just because you can't observe an effect doesn't mean there wasn't one. Or that you didn't miscontrue the data, and so on. I remember (yes, during my lifetime) when scientists used the fact that we couldn't detect planets to declare that no other planets (except the ones in our solar system) existed. They could not detect the gravitational effects, yet those effects still existed. As we now know today.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 15:12

Tulonsae wrote:
697134002 wrote:
Tulonsae wrote:1. Ummm. No. I am saying that when you think of Hitler in a monkey suit outside your house, you are thinking of that as a concept. If you are thinking of it as existing, you are probably delusional. Harry Potter does exist. Harry Potter is a fictional character in several books and movies. You can go to nearly any book store and check imdb.com to see those facts.

2. That is most definitely not true. Things that we do not know exist could certainly be affecting us. We just haven't analyzed the data properly to figure it out. Or the data is unavailable to us with our current techniques/technology.

I said "more neutral" since I do not believe that anyone can be completely neutral. I tend to think in relative terms, not absolutes. And I probably look at facts with more skepticism than you do. I probably look at beliefs with far less skeptism than you do. Since it doesn't matter to me (most of the time) what other people believe. For my own beliefs, I attempt to analyze them thoroughly.
1: You said that atheists cannot think of god without thinking that he exists.

2: I am not only talking about the causes of things; I was also talking about the effects. If we cannot observe any effect, it can be thought of as not existing.
1. Yes, I said that. I don't see any conflict with my other comments. Perhaps, I worded it unclearly?

2. I still stand by my statement. Just because you can't observe an effect doesn't mean there wasn't one. Or that you didn't miscontrue the data, and so on. I remember (yes, during my lifetime) when scientists used the fact that we couldn't detect planets to declare that no other planets (except the ones in our solar system) existed. They could not detect the gravitational effects, yet those effects still existed. As we now know today.
1: If you did, I would appreciate you wording it better. It seems like you're saying that atheists cannot think of god without thinking that he exists, in which case... they're not atheists. You're saying that atheists cannot think of god outside of the notion of one.

2: EXACTLY - They could not detect the gravitational effects. They said something which was correct to the best of their knowledge. They eventually turned out to be wrong, but, given what they knew at the time, they were correct.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
DuplicateValue
Retired
Posts: 2569
Joined: 29 Oct 2010, 12:36

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by DuplicateValue » 04 Jul 2012, 15:23

697134002 wrote:2: EXACTLY - They could not detect the gravitational effects. They said something which was correct to the best of their knowledge. They eventually turned out to be wrong, but, given what they knew at the time, they were correct.
Okay, I don't know half enough about this stuff to comment for the most part, but just this idea is ridiculous. You can't be correct if you're wrong. You can make an educated guess based on what you know, but it's still just that - a guess. An incorrect guess, as it turned out in that case.
Image

"He's like fire, and ice, and rage.
He's like the night, and the storm in the heart of the sun.
He's ancient and forever.
He burns at the centre of time and he can see the turn of the universe.
And... he's wonderful."

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 15:31

1. Okay. I'll try again.

In a discussion on the nature of something, by default that something exists. Because you are talking about its nature, abilities, description, whatever. When you are talking about the concept of something, you can also talk about whether the something exists - because you are thinking of it as a concept, not an actual object.

If you respond to a question on the nature of something, then you are considering it as existing. If your response is that it doesn't exist (and you truly think it doesn't exist), you either misread the question or decided to comment on something that wasn't directed at you and are changing the subject.

Based on the comments that several atheists made, and my own personal experience with dealing with Christians and the concept of Jesus, I consider those atheists to be along the lines of someone who accepts God's existence at an unconscious level, but rejects it at a conscious level. Rather than as someone who simply doesn't consider God as existing at all. This is my opinion. And I understand that others do not agree.

2. No, they were wrong. They concluded that other planets did not exist and taught that in colleges as fact. Instead, they should have taught that we do not know. By teaching it as a fact, they possibly hindered the eventual discovery of the data and proper evaluation of that data. By teaching it as an unknown, they could encourage us to improve our techniques and technology in order to expand our base knowledge.

And regardless of what scientists taught, they were wrong. They made the best conclusion they knew how to do, but they were wrong.

Edit: #2 Ninja'd by Dupe. And he said it so much elegantly than I did :)
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 15:44

DuplicateValue wrote:
697134002 wrote:2: EXACTLY - They could not detect the gravitational effects. They said something which was correct to the best of their knowledge. They eventually turned out to be wrong, but, given what they knew at the time, they were correct.
Okay, I don't know half enough about this stuff to comment for the most part, but just this idea is ridiculous. You can't be correct if you're wrong. You can make an educated guess based on what you know, but it's still just that - a guess. An incorrect guess, as it turned out in that case.
They were correct to the best of their knowledge. They were not wrong to say it simply because evidence showed up later proving them wrong. They could not have anticipated that evidence coming up later any more than they could have anticipated learning that a mother's love is the world's deadliest poison in 2110 when they said that polonium was the deadliest poison. Scientists say that things are true based on available evidence and they are as correct as possible at that moment in time. New evidence comes up later and they revise what they said or throw it out to match the new evidence. But that does not mean that what they said earlier was not as correct as possible with their knowledge.

Tulonsae wrote:1. Okay. I'll try again.

In a discussion on the nature of something, by default that something exists. Because you are talking about its nature, abilities, description, whatever. When you are talking about the concept of something, you can also talk about whether the something exists - because you are thinking of it as a concept, not an actual object.

If you respond to a question on the nature of something, then you are considering it as existing. If your response is that it doesn't exist (and you truly think it doesn't exist), you either misread the question or decided to comment on something that wasn't directed at you and are changing the subject.

Based on the comments that several atheists made, and my own personal experience with dealing with Christians and the concept of Jesus, I consider those atheists to be along the lines of someone who accepts God's existence at an unconscious level, but rejects it at a conscious level. Rather than as someone who simply doesn't consider God as existing at all. This is my opinion. And I understand that others do not agree.

2. No, they were wrong. They concluded that other planets did not exist and taught that in colleges as fact. Instead, they should have taught that we do not know. By teaching it as a fact, they possibly hindered the eventual discovery of the data and proper evaluation of that data. By teaching it as an unknown, they could encourage us to improve our techniques and technology in order to expand our base knowledge.

And regardless of what scientists taught, they were wrong. They made the best conclusion they knew how to do, but they were wrong.

Edit: #2 Ninja'd by Dupe. And he said it so much elegantly than I did :)
1: No, it doesn't. Darth Vader isn't real, but we can say things about him. When you are talking about the concept of something, you're talking about the idea of Darth Vader rather than the Darth Vader who was once Anakin. The concept of a god could refer to Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or any other deity. But the question was asking what you thought when you thought of the christian god. Not the concept of a god. The god described in the bible.

2: See the top of this post.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 15:48

@697,

Hmm... I think we've reached the point where your understanding of English and mine have diverged. On both points.

I still stand by my opinions. And I understand that you don't agree and think differently.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 15:51

So explain what you mean when you say that atheists cannot think of the god of the bible in terms that we can both understand perfectly.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 16:01

Ok, I'll try again.

So, you see a post titled "Who are Martians to you?"

You're curious so you read the original post. And it says,

"What automatically comes to mind when you think about Martians? I think they cute and cuddlely, and I love how they laugh."

What do you do?
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 16:07

Tulonsae wrote:Ok, I'll try again.

So, you see a post titled "Who are Martians to you?"

You're curious so you read the original post. And it says,

"What automatically comes to mind when you think about Martians? I think they cute and cuddlely, and I love how they laugh."

What do you do?
I would say that I think of that martian in Bugs Bunny.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 16:12

697134002 wrote:
Tulonsae wrote:Ok, I'll try again.

So, you see a post titled "Who are Martians to you?"

You're curious so you read the original post. And it says,

"What automatically comes to mind when you think about Martians? I think they cute and cuddlely, and I love how they laugh."

What do you do?
I would say that I think of that martian in Bugs Bunny.
Well, then cool. You do think about Martians. Although fictional ones.

You see, in my example post, I said "when" not "if". So the when means that you think of Martians all on your own and not because you saw my post. And then you responded about what you think of them when I asked.
--Tulonsae

User avatar
697134002
Posts: 1845
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 16:17
Location: Canada

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by 697134002 » 04 Jul 2012, 16:16

Tulonsae wrote:
697134002 wrote:
Tulonsae wrote:Ok, I'll try again.

So, you see a post titled "Who are Martians to you?"

You're curious so you read the original post. And it says,

"What automatically comes to mind when you think about Martians? I think they cute and cuddlely, and I love how they laugh."

What do you do?
I would say that I think of that martian in Bugs Bunny.
Well, then cool. You do think about Martians. Although fictional ones.

You see, in my example post, I said "when" not "if". So the when means that you think of Martians all on your own and not because you saw my post. And then you responded about what you think of them when I asked.
Okay. My point still stands. I can think of fictional things. I can think about aspects of them. I can say what I think when I think of them.

And just to clear some stuff up and see if we're just misunderstanding each other, had the topic not changed before I read it, I would have responded 'genocide.'

I can think of aspects of things I do not believe in.
Richard Dawkins wrote:I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

User avatar
Tulonsae
Plugin Queen
Posts: 3886
Joined: 19 May 2011, 17:35

Re: Religion and atheists

Post by Tulonsae » 04 Jul 2012, 16:24

Sure, of course atheists can think of fictional things. But if it's fiction, it exists as fiction. My understanding is that atheists consider god to not exist. And, perhaps I worded it badly, but my original post in this thread was my confusion at why atheists would comment in a thread on the nature of god with "He doesn't exist."
--Tulonsae

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests