this is a great thread. I had a huge argument with my cultural diversity teacher over this very fact.

she's a christian of sorts and I'm an atheist, and she argued in class one day that one had to have religion behind a belief to make it a belief. I was really angry at that assertion, and argued that my beliefs were just as valid as hers, by all the principles of social justice that Community Services work by [which is what I'm studying].

She then argued that my non-faith based beliefs were less important on the whole...

I really feel like putting a complaint in about her...

I think that any idea held about facts or lack thereof is a personal belief although in the religious context it's a belief shared by a group. Now atheism in my opinion is a belief but it is not a belief system. We don't have doctrines or tenets that we all follow and every atheist is an individual with his/her own set of beliefs regarding religion and many other topics.

For example, I believe that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being that the religious label god. I also believe that all religions that believe in supernatural deities are entirely based on ancient mythology.

(December 12, 2011 at 8:35 am)Galileo Wrote: She then argued that my non-faith based beliefs were less important on the whole...

I really feel like putting a complaint in about her...

SHE DID WHAT!

Gimme her name, her address, and no one will be hearing from this cretin ever again.

Seriously though, no one person's beliefs are any more important than anyone else's. I would definitely complain. She ever heard of a thing called equality?

She has, as she works in the community services sector and that is one of the most important aspects of community work, along with confidentiality and social justice, but her views of them are a bit twisted, etc.

she believes that since my views are not faith based, they are not as important as the views of someone who believes their soul in danger etc... I should be prepared to compremise on my beliefs more than she should. that's pretty much how she put it.
I don't have her classes next year.

(December 12, 2011 at 7:22 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

Quote:That you disbelieve something without proving means it's a belief

I know you're banned an all but I love turning bad arguments around and throwing it back at them.

You disbelieve in Roger Rabbit right? So based on your argument - you must have proof that Roger Rabbit don't exist.
So....demonstrate it.

Typical counter they'd use is special pleading but of course once they use a fallacious argument...they've lost the argument.

I managed to hack into the system again...somehow. Anyway...

It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

(December 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)goodcake Wrote: If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods
2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.
3: The idea of god was obviously a primitive try at explaining the world by people ignorant of the facts. most of the first part of genesis is just a sort of 'just so' story,(google rudyard kipling if you dont know what these are).
4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.
5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.
6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.
7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

(December 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)goodcake Wrote: If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods
2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.
3: The idea of god was obviously a primitive try at explaining the world by people ignorant of the facts. most of the first part of genesis is just a sort of 'just so' story,(google rudyard kipling if you dont know what these are).
4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.
5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.
6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.
7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

Reason enough for me.

(December 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)goodcake Wrote: It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

Not all atheists try to prove that there isn't a god...however we equate god to "something which fulfils no purpose or function" because god serves no more purpose. You might say "yeah god does serve a purpose because he lays down moral guidelines, or whatever", but equally I could say "yeah so santa serves a purpose, he makes christmas magical and gives kids presents".

You are failing to understand that atheists don't believe in god like they don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy, there really isn't any difference. The only difference is that everybody stops believing in santa and the tooth fairy, but some people continue to believe in god into adulthood.

Quote:If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

The whole point of you can't disprove a leprechaun/unicorn/fairy argument is to show the theist (when he inevitably says "well you can't DISPROVE god") that you can't disprove any number of made up things.

Quote:I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

Many atheists equate fairies with god because they consider them equally likely to be fiction.

Quote:If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

Please give a valid reason why there needs to be an alternative to god?

I have no problem with there being nothing out there in place of god, and nothing does not need validation because nothing has no properties and is not anything.

Quote:It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

Our position is absolutely validated at every turn. Simple fact is, we don't believe because we have not been given sufficient evidence. That is reasonable and valid.

(December 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm)goodcake Wrote: If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so

Quote:1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

Quote:2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

Quote:3: The idea of god was obviously a primitive try at explaining the world by people ignorant of the facts. most of the first part of genesis is just a sort of 'just so' story,(google rudyard kipling if you dont know what these are).

Not at all. We just have different questions now. If you have answers please outline these. Just because some events which can be accounted for by not invoking a god, atheists seem to think this refutes a god.

Quote:4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

Quote:5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

Quote:6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.

Does this refute your position? or only everyone who disagrees with you?

Quote:7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

(December 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm)goodcake Wrote: e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

Wait what!? You have evidence Thor doesn't create lightening! WELL PLEASE SHARE MOTHERFUCKER!