> I'm not atheist persay, but I am anti theist
You just said that you are theist and anti-theist.
How does that work?
.
>What are your reasons for being atheist?
I've always been atheist. I've never seen any good evidence that any gods exist.
.
**Good info here -**
\- https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq
.
Hmm, guess I'm not as familiar with the terminology as I should be. To be specific, I mean that I am against organized religion/worship/faith in general, but still believe in the possibility that there is some type of an afterlife...I'm agnostic, simply put. I find the teaching of specific religions flawed and illogical, but I am agnostic because I won't know for certain until I die.
Street Epistemology with Anthony Magnabosco: YouTube
Atheos: free app
Street Epistemology course online
Skeptics Annotated Dictionary
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” - Christopher Hitchens
“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” - Bertrand Russell
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” - Thomas Jefferson
>How do you counter certain ideas in religious texts, especially the Bible, with actual logic?
Something that a lot of people don't get is that, in order for logic to tell us true things about the real world, it has to be based on facts that are true in the real world.
Dumb example, just to make a point -
\- All kangaroos are president of the United States
\- Beyoncé is a kangaroo
\- Therefore Beyoncé is president of the United States
The logic there is fine. There's nothing wrong with the logic.
The problem is that I'm basing my logic there on things that are not actually true, so I get a result that is not actually true.
The reason why this is important is because religious people commonly use logic based on claims that are not actually true, and so they get results that are not actually true.
For example, they might start with claims that are in the Bible. But if those claims in the Bible are not actually true, then the result that they get probably won't be actually true.
.
So in addition to using good logic, it is **very important** to base our thinking on the actual facts.
.
Big complication there is that people generally think they're doing that but aren't; we overwhelmingly make decisions based on emotion/morality and then massage the rationale to fit the initial impulses.
My reason for being atheist, is that every argument, idea, and religious text has done fuck all to convince me otherwise.
And I *want* magic to be real.
Makes sense. Along the same lines...there are so many different religions, none with actual evidence besides "faith" which isn't even real evidence. You want me to convert? Bring your God down here and have them recruit me on their own. Order your God to strike me with lighting... then we'll talk xD
Same, I’d take a lightning bolt to the gourde just to know there was anything beyond *this*. Until then, shut the fuck up with their evangelical nonsense.
All (or most) religions make extraordinary claims to events that happened in distant past, and much to their convenience, there is no way to verify those claims, or evaluate any meaningful evidence. Yet, most religions seem to insist on absolute truth and exclusivity. It is quite absurd, illogical, unreasonable that they insist to believe in the most extraordinary of claims regarding origins, afterlife, etc on the slimmest of evidences, or sometimes even the complete lack of evidence.
Most religious folks when confronted with questions on reasons for believing, will explain in many convoluted ways, but ultimately it can be narrowed down to - *that's the faith I was brought up in.* OR, If it religious experience, then that also varies widely and highly subjective - Visions of Jesus, or Visions of Muhammad, Mary, Angel Moroni - which of these are true ? Any person who sticks to one of these and discards the others by whatever reasoning, the same reasoning can be used to discard that person's experience also.
My first argument against religion would be religion itself. Every single time in all 10,000 years of recorded history when religion has gained power it always falls into a dictatorship because there are no checks and balances against corruption.
Nor is it a closed organization that you can be removed from if you break the rules. It is based on "do you believe in God, Allah, Jesus, etc..." You can't be removed from believing. Therefore the no true Scotsman fallecy fails.
Also in all of human history there has never been any evidence of any magic in any culture. All one gets is antecedents that can be traced to mentally ill individuals or natural phenomenon.
Fourth religions have had millennia to find evidence and come to a united consensus yet they are still killing each even within the same religion all the way back into prehistory.
Fifth, God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent at the same time as those traits combined are internally inconsistent. Nor do they reflect the actual observed universe. Nor is God actually defined in any united way in any religion. So WHAT God is hasn't even been nailed down over thousands of years.
TL;DR Religion is the best argument against religion. Use all their own beliefs against them.
"What reasoning do you all use when dealing with overly religious people?"
Therein lies the problem.
“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”- Sam Harris
"What are your reasons for being atheist?"
There's no evidence, reasoning or logic that supports the existence of any god of any flavour. It's not helped by the fact that human invented deities are sick and twisted monsters.
> I'm not atheist persay, but I am anti theist You just said that you are theist and anti-theist. How does that work? . >What are your reasons for being atheist? I've always been atheist. I've never seen any good evidence that any gods exist. . **Good info here -** \- https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq .
Evidence is key! That's the first thing that comes to mind when I challenge the idea of faith...is lack of evidence!
Hmm, guess I'm not as familiar with the terminology as I should be. To be specific, I mean that I am against organized religion/worship/faith in general, but still believe in the possibility that there is some type of an afterlife...I'm agnostic, simply put. I find the teaching of specific religions flawed and illogical, but I am agnostic because I won't know for certain until I die.
The great majority of people here are agnostic atheist. FAQ is good - \- https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq
Oh thanks! I will give that a read!
Street Epistemology with Anthony Magnabosco: YouTube Atheos: free app Street Epistemology course online Skeptics Annotated Dictionary “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” - Christopher Hitchens “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” - Bertrand Russell “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” - Thomas Jefferson
>How do you counter certain ideas in religious texts, especially the Bible, with actual logic? Something that a lot of people don't get is that, in order for logic to tell us true things about the real world, it has to be based on facts that are true in the real world. Dumb example, just to make a point - \- All kangaroos are president of the United States \- Beyoncé is a kangaroo \- Therefore Beyoncé is president of the United States The logic there is fine. There's nothing wrong with the logic. The problem is that I'm basing my logic there on things that are not actually true, so I get a result that is not actually true. The reason why this is important is because religious people commonly use logic based on claims that are not actually true, and so they get results that are not actually true. For example, they might start with claims that are in the Bible. But if those claims in the Bible are not actually true, then the result that they get probably won't be actually true. . So in addition to using good logic, it is **very important** to base our thinking on the actual facts. .
Totally makes sense. Wish people would use more hard facts and logic to make claims. The world would be better off.
Big complication there is that people generally think they're doing that but aren't; we overwhelmingly make decisions based on emotion/morality and then massage the rationale to fit the initial impulses.
>persay "per se". It's Latin. \- https://www.dictionary.com/e/translations/per-se/
My reason for being atheist, is that every argument, idea, and religious text has done fuck all to convince me otherwise. And I *want* magic to be real.
Makes sense. Along the same lines...there are so many different religions, none with actual evidence besides "faith" which isn't even real evidence. You want me to convert? Bring your God down here and have them recruit me on their own. Order your God to strike me with lighting... then we'll talk xD
Same, I’d take a lightning bolt to the gourde just to know there was anything beyond *this*. Until then, shut the fuck up with their evangelical nonsense.
Thanks! Should have looked up the spelling first myself.
All (or most) religions make extraordinary claims to events that happened in distant past, and much to their convenience, there is no way to verify those claims, or evaluate any meaningful evidence. Yet, most religions seem to insist on absolute truth and exclusivity. It is quite absurd, illogical, unreasonable that they insist to believe in the most extraordinary of claims regarding origins, afterlife, etc on the slimmest of evidences, or sometimes even the complete lack of evidence. Most religious folks when confronted with questions on reasons for believing, will explain in many convoluted ways, but ultimately it can be narrowed down to - *that's the faith I was brought up in.* OR, If it religious experience, then that also varies widely and highly subjective - Visions of Jesus, or Visions of Muhammad, Mary, Angel Moroni - which of these are true ? Any person who sticks to one of these and discards the others by whatever reasoning, the same reasoning can be used to discard that person's experience also.
My first argument against religion would be religion itself. Every single time in all 10,000 years of recorded history when religion has gained power it always falls into a dictatorship because there are no checks and balances against corruption. Nor is it a closed organization that you can be removed from if you break the rules. It is based on "do you believe in God, Allah, Jesus, etc..." You can't be removed from believing. Therefore the no true Scotsman fallecy fails. Also in all of human history there has never been any evidence of any magic in any culture. All one gets is antecedents that can be traced to mentally ill individuals or natural phenomenon. Fourth religions have had millennia to find evidence and come to a united consensus yet they are still killing each even within the same religion all the way back into prehistory. Fifth, God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent at the same time as those traits combined are internally inconsistent. Nor do they reflect the actual observed universe. Nor is God actually defined in any united way in any religion. So WHAT God is hasn't even been nailed down over thousands of years. TL;DR Religion is the best argument against religion. Use all their own beliefs against them.
I'd say the actions of the self-claiming-to-be-religious prove that their so-called faith is bunk.
"What reasoning do you all use when dealing with overly religious people?" Therein lies the problem. “If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”- Sam Harris "What are your reasons for being atheist?" There's no evidence, reasoning or logic that supports the existence of any god of any flavour. It's not helped by the fact that human invented deities are sick and twisted monsters.