athiests and christians? two sides of the same coin?

Question

athiests blather on about christians being superstitous and non rationale, however both groups are exactly the same as they can neither prove or disprove the existence of god. Both groups are talking nonsense.

Interesting points made, my background is one based in science for the past 15 years. I deal in facts, however I cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. question was not about my personal opinion but based on observation that both groups argue out of the belief that they are right, on what grounds do both groups base this certainty?

people are missing the whole point of the question? belief is not about right or wrong but of tolerance, I find little tolerance from either view

Answer 1

In a sense, you're arguing an agnostic position - but as has been pointed out, it is for those that claim there is such a thing that there is a personal god, then at the very least the burden to say why they believe falls onto them, if it can't stretch to proof in a scientific, rational sense.

In my opinion, though, I'm uneasy with the description 'atheist', and I've stopped using the label to describe myself. This is because it is a term that comes from the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, and in that sense, you're right to point out that they are "two sides of the same coin". It makes no sense outside of those religions, to the point where you have to say that most forms of Buddhism are athiestic religions, etc.

I find it a sectarian and divisive term, especially in the States. Declaring yourself an 'atheist' tends to be a label that goes beyond a simple disbelief in a view of the particular god suggested by the Middle Eastern religions. For example, where (on the religinon side) fundamentalist Christians in particular are used to these sorts of arguments. Thus 'atheists' are accused of all kinds specious charges, eg that 'atheists' are somehow responsible for science (particularly the Big Bang and evolution), that they have no morality (only religion can give that), etc.

Athiests can and do in turn respond in an equally ridiculous way (and regrettably Dawkins falls into that trap). But actually, they are talking past each other, and about different things - one from a position of faith, the other from a position of rationality - which makes it an absurd argument to have.

Answer 2

You are talking nonsense I am afraid. Just because neither side can prove or disprove the other does not make them equal. One is based on faith and the other on reason.

I would like to hear your views on this, if you think both are nonsense. Does this make you an agnostic? If your view is simply that it's unprovable either way, then you are clearly wrong in your view that 'both groups are talking nonsense' as you just don't know which is correct - and by the way, there is no reason to prove something doesn't exist. When was the last time someone asked you to disprove Santa before you were able to say there was no such person?

If you are of another religion, then I'd say you are still talking nonsense as you are in exactly the same position as the christian - you have a belief in an unprovable god/gods. That you would also comment on christianity as being nonsense seems a little strange, when whatever arguments you chose to use in support of that statement can be used on your own position.

Answer 3

I think that you have a bit more wisdom than most. It seems to me that belief and unbelief are both a little unscientific.

For your information - the widespread belief in God comes from an inner experience that people have - it is not completely unfounded, but the evidence is entirely subjective. Take up meditation or prayer and experience for yourself.

In terms of proof - i don't believe anything can really be proven. Everything is a theory based on what we have experienced - We experience seeing the world around us, but when we are on drugs or asleep we experience a very different world. We assume that what we experience is true, but maybe it also is some kind of dream or trip? How would we ever know?

In that sense this existence of god argument is a bit like the existence of the two colours red and green. Some are colour blind and only see one colour others can see both. In the same way some experience God, and others do not. The question is not "does god exist" but "why do some experience God and others do not?"

It would seem that the simplest answer is that there is something out there. I would not go so far as to say what it is, but there is probably something that gives people that experience.

Answer 4

Hm... If one side of the coin says true and the other false, then maybe.

Wait a minute, you've fallen for a fallacy - the notion that because something cannot be proved either way does not mean the chance of its existing is 50% - you can't prove the tooth fairy doesnt fly around and give coins for fresh teeth -so does that mean you think she really exists?

How about Unicorns in the forest. Maybe you don't understand that atheism isn't built on belief - that is rests in rationality and a rejection of arguments from authority.

All in all, you sound like a very misinformed agnostic, or theist apologist.

Answer 5

No. You're missing one major point. You know, you cannot disprove anything. For instance, if I say that there is a substance called "malikejaka", can you disprove it? No. Because you don't even know the properties of that thing. (You can prove the non-existence of salt in a container because you know the properties of the the salt). Same concept. Get the gist?

Also, true athiests won't condemn others' religious believes. They will disagree but they consider all possibilities.

Leviathan has a really good point there. Consider tooth fairies, Cinderella and unicorns...

Answer 6

Er

How about athiests having no sexist or homophobic irration silly unfair rules?

Hoever the athiests have far more evidence namely things like proving the bible worng or providing far more lijkly sinarios for so called acts of god or miracles.


Ie funny how the burning bush stroy was where opium poppies and cannibis gorws, that just before moses parted the seas there were pillars of fire like when you get seizmic activity and it sounds like a tsumae


Or geologists can prove the earth older then 4000 years or so


etc

Answer 7

No, you're talking nonsense, because you are obviously unable to think logically. Atheists don't have to prove the existence of God. It is up to the person who is making the claim for existence to prove it. It is not nonsense to point out that some people are too afraid of death to accept it without making up some bullshit story about "the afterlife", and it is not nonsense to point out that the majority of Christians do not believe in anyone else's god but their own, when theirs is no more believable than anyone else's.

Reason and rationality are two sides of the same coin. Reason and superstition are not.

Non-Believers
"Where No Religion is a Good Thing"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Non-Believers/

Answer 8

Except that the burden of proof is on the one who claims existence.

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 9

I'm perfectly happy to be intoleratant of irrational nonsense being proselytised across the globe whereas you seem happy for it to continue.

Do you think it's acceptable for African leaders to tell their people that HIV does not cause AIDS? Just because the people who believe their nonsense are too ignorant to understand the science, does not make their claim valid. Not all arguments have two equally valid sides to them.

Answer 10

Athieism is a faith like other faiths-it is a belief The believer [ in this case the atheist] can only use persuasive arguments to justify / defend his standpoint; but certainly not proof.-yeah and same goes for the other lot.
I do think it's sad to define yourself in the negative. Agnosticism is the only honest .humble and intelligent option; sign up now.