The Atheist Thread

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:Religion is a universal belief, I really don't understand why people are intent on coming up with these witty analogies such as RR's teapot as a comparison. Sorry, please be more original.

Well it's not universal, I prove that.

What?

Eternal Witcher wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Well it's not universal, I prove that.

What?

Not everyone holds religious beliefs.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Let's say I believe in a teapot, Jorlung, a very small teapot that is orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter, only on the exact opposite side of the Earth to the Sun. You can't prove it doesn't exist, I can't prove it does exist.

Would you be happy if I was basing my voting for the government on the belief in that teapot, there were millions of other people like me who were doing the same, and the Politicians pandered to this, with it being impossible for them to be elected without saying they believe in the teapot?

If the majority fo the voters believe in this teapot, then what's wrong? A democracy is a majority rules. Why is your belief better than anyone else's? There should be basic human rights available to everyone though: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

MickStupp wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

What?

Not everyone holds religious beliefs.

Let me re-phrase that. Billions have accepted religion. It is established and universally recognized. No-one gives a damn about the teapot. These analogies stopped being smart a long time ago.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Let's say I believe in a teapot, Jorlung, a very small teapot that is orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter, only on the exact opposite side of the Earth to the Sun. You can't prove it doesn't exist, I can't prove it does exist.

Would you be happy if I was basing my voting for the government on the belief in that teapot, there were millions of other people like me who were doing the same, and the Politicians pandered to this, with it being impossible for them to be elected without saying they believe in the teapot?

If the majority fo the voters believe in this teapot, then what's wrong? A democracy is a majority rules. Why is your belief better than anyone else's? There should be basic human rights available to everyone though: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

It's a fucking absurdity, that's what's wrong with it. Imagine if laws were being made saying you can't criticise the belief, or offend believers.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
Not everyone holds religious beliefs.

Let me re-phrase that. Billions have accepted religion. It is established and universally recognized. No-one gives a damn about the teapot. These analogies stopped being smart a long time ago.

So if billions believed in the teapot, would that be legit?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

If the majority fo the voters believe in this teapot, then what's wrong? A democracy is a majority rules. Why is your belief better than anyone else's? There should be basic human rights available to everyone though: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.

It's a fucking absurdity, that's what's wrong with it. Imagine if laws were being made saying you can't criticise the belief, or offend believers.

Then that would be against your freedom of speech right, which I clearly stated needed to be universal.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:

Let me re-phrase that. Billions have accepted religion. It is established and universally recognized. No-one gives a damn about the teapot. These analogies stopped being smart a long time ago.

So if billions believed in the teapot, would that be legit?

The thing is, they won't.

Wow, is this debate still going on? Tbh, both sides look like fucking morons in this. Neither are right.

There is no proof that God exists, yet there is no proof that he doesn't. Nobody can be 100% certain that God is there or not. Nobody, anybody that claims to be obviously gets confused between 'believing' and 'knowing'. Anyone who says they know 100% why we are here, or how we came to be here is fucking delusional.

Dan wrote:Wow, is this debate still going on? Tbh, both sides look like fucking morons in this. Neither are right.

There is no proof that God exists, yet there is no proof that he doesn't. Nobody can be 100% certain that God is there or not. Nobody, anybody that claims to be obviously gets confused between 'believing' and 'knowing'. Anyone who says they know 100% why we are here, or how we came to be here is fucking delusional.

No-one can be 100% certain that the teapot doesn't exist either, but we don't give that much credibility.

Dan wrote:Wow, is this debate still going on? Tbh, both sides look like fucking morons in this. Neither are right.

There is no proof that God exists, yet there is no proof that he doesn't. Nobody can be 100% certain that God is there or not. Nobody, anybody that claims to be obviously gets confused between 'believing' and 'knowing'. Anyone who says they know 100% why we are here, or how we came to be here is fucking delusional.

We can agree on that.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Dan wrote:Wow, is this debate still going on? Tbh, both sides look like fucking morons in this. Neither are right.

There is no proof that God exists, yet there is no proof that he doesn't. Nobody can be 100% certain that God is there or not. Nobody, anybody that claims to be obviously gets confused between 'believing' and 'knowing'. Anyone who says they know 100% why we are here, or how we came to be here is fucking delusional.

No-one can be 100% certain that the teapot doesn't exist either, but we don't give that much credibility.

Wow and you claim to be intelligent.

Yeah, that's right, I am. You can't prove that the teapot doesn't exist.

Don't need to though.

You don't seem to understand that no one is asking you to prove if it doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, continually ask to prove that it does exist.

SBSP wrote:You don't seem to understand that no one is asking you to prove if it doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, continually ask to prove that it does exist.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making about the teapot. If I was making serious life choices based on it, and people like me were influencing the leadership of your country, drawing their morality from a book that was written about a distant teapot 1500 years ago, then I'm sure you would challenge my belief.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

SBSP wrote:You don't seem to understand that no one is asking you to prove if it doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, continually ask to prove that it does exist.

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making about the teapot. If I was making serious life choices based on it, and people like me were influencing the leadership of your country, drawing their morality from a book that was written about a distant teapot 1500 years ago, then I'm sure you would challenge my belief.

So we should instead let atheists make the decisions for us? Views are going to be affected by life experience, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), etc. If the majority of the nation decide on something, then that should be the rule. You are a minority and you need to accept that. You are given the basic human rights enjoyed by all citizens. You are not a victim of anyone's religious beliefs.

Your ego has gotten to the point where it has made you hypocritical.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making about the teapot. If I was making serious life choices based on it, and people like me were influencing the leadership of your country, drawing their morality from a book that was written about a distant teapot 1500 years ago, then I'm sure you would challenge my belief.

So we should instead let atheists make the decisions for us? Views are going to be affected by life experience, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), etc. If the majority of the nation decide on something, then that should be the rule. You are a minority and you need to accept that. You are given the basic human rights enjoyed by all citizens. You are not a victim of anyone's religious beliefs.

Your ego has gotten to the point where it has made you hypocritical.

Right, so if the majority of people accept that building giant teapot temples, and punishing people who criticise these temples, is the right thing to do, then that is the right thing to do? No.

at the people who don't understand the teapot.

polska. wrote: at the people who don't understand the teapot.

It's not about not understanding. It's a stupid comparison.

Why yes it is. That is the point.

Fucking hell..

Dan wrote:

polska. wrote: at the people who don't understand the teapot.

It's not about not understanding. It's a stupid comparison.

It is intended to illustrate the paucity of 'You can't prove he doesn't exist' line of argument.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

So we should instead let atheists make the decisions for us? Views are going to be affected by life experience, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), etc. If the majority of the nation decide on something, then that should be the rule. You are a minority and you need to accept that. You are given the basic human rights enjoyed by all citizens. You are not a victim of anyone's religious beliefs.

Your ego has gotten to the point where it has made you hypocritical.

Right, so if the majority of people accept that building giant teapot temples, and punishing people who criticise these temples, is the right thing to do, then that is the right thing to do? No.

Wow, are you fucking blind? I already repeated myself twice on this matter. Let me repeat it one more time in CAPS...

EVERY HUMAN BEING SHOULD HAVE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS

So if someone is punishing you for criticizing a faith, that goes against 1) Freedom of speech and 2) Cruel and unusual punishment

You can't prove he doesn't exist. Neither can you prove that he does. Stating that you know 100% either way is idiotic.

In my country we have blasphemy laws. This is also the case in many theocracies.

Dan wrote:You can't prove he doesn't exist. Neither can you prove that he does. Stating that you know 100% either way is idiotic.

As I said, that is a completely stupid argument, as you can't prove that the teapot doesn't exist.

RR, why are you even bothered what Ahly and co. believe?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Dan wrote:You can't prove he doesn't exist. Neither can you prove that he does. Stating that you know 100% either way is idiotic.

As I said, that is a completely stupid argument, as you can't prove that the teapot doesn't exist.

It's not a stupid argument. Are you 100% certain that God does not exist?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:In my country we have blasphemy laws. This is also the case in many theocracies.

Then the problem is with the government, not religion. I already stated my views. You can have anything influence your decisions/choices. Ultimately, it's the majority that rules. That being said, every being should be given basic human rights which protect their freedom of speech, assembly, and religion.

Your views on religion is reminiscent of a certain Stalin. You can't have a government that bans all religions nor can you have a government that bans anything but a certain religion. Both are extremes and both are very wrong.