Why are the religious so sensitive?

[Meatball]

I’m new here so I hope you don’t mind me chiming in. I believe in God so I’ll refer to myself as a “theist”: from now on. I came here to challenge my beliefs and knowledge as well as to get a better understanding of atheists and agnostics. If there is any objections to me posting here please let me know. I don’t want to be where I’m not wanted.

It's great that you are willing to challenge your beliefs to the extent of joining an discussion community such as this, I hope you find yourself welcome here. Without any opposition this forum will inevitably turn into a massive circle-jerk.

After watching part one of 'The Four Horsemen' yesterday ...

I take it that's a movie? What's it about? Did you like it?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with atheist authors, but the "new wave" of atheism is mostly credited to four people:

• Daniel Dennett
  A philosopher who deals with the concept of free will, he wrote 'Breaking the Spell'.
  
  
  
• Richard Dawkins
  An evolutionary biologist, he wrote 'The God Delusion',
  
  
  
• Christopher Hitchens
  A journalist and literary critic, he wrote 'God Is Not Great'
  
  
  
• Sam Harris
  An author and student of philosophy, he wrote 'The End of Faith' and 'Letter To A Christian Nation'

I challenge you to read any of these books if you're looking to challenge your faith. Each provides a very compelling case.

These four guys got together for a recorded discussion on atheism and religion. You can buy a DVD of the entire discussion, with proceeds going towards charity.

I think deep down every believer knows that their religion is far-fetched.

That may be true for some theists but I’d have a hard time believing that it is true for all of us. I know its not true in my case, i.e. I don’t have a deep-seated belief that religion is far-fetched.

That, combined with the deeply personal nature of religion, means an attack on someone's religion is also an attack on someone's personal flaw.

I don’t follow. How is this related to personal flaws?

It was connected to the previous statement that religious belief requires a leap of faith, in that you cannot proof it. You rejected that line of reasoning, so I can see how you missed the connection. I'm not sure how to describe it, it's admittedly not well thought out.

Because it requires faith to believe something unprovable, it makes it a personal conflict, if even a miniscule one. Attack this belief is an attack on this personal conflict. Almost like homophobia and repressed homosexuality. A repressed homosexual is especially sensitive to questions of sexuality because it's something they are dealing with internally, on a personal level. It may be on a subconcious level, but I think it exists nonetheless.

It's just a theory, I have a lot of free time.

[Jason Jarred]

Its been said that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever proven that its impossible to prove that he does exist.

Oh wow... that's deep and quirky logic you got there. Mind if I quote you on it?
(come to think of it, I think this type of logic was used in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

[FutureAndAHope]

I know God exists, I also know most attacks on Christianity are baseless. The baslessness of an attack is what anoys me. People who are drawing others away from God by misrepresenting the facts.

I also know that Christianity is the only way for nations and people to live sucessfully; so it anoys me when I see people drawing people away from this.

But it does not anoyme that much, otherwise I would not be on this forumn.

As for arguments for Gods existance. The very fact that we exist, shows it is possible that God exists. God is a rational being, with thoughts feelings, emotions; as we are.

[Ace Otana]

I know God exists, I also know most attacks on Christianity are baseless. The baslessness of an attack is what anoys me. People who are drawing others away from God by misrepresenting the facts.

I also know that Christianity is the only way for nations and people to live sucessfully; so it anoys me when I see people drawing people away from this.

But it does not anoyme that much, otherwise I would not be on this forumn.

As for arguments for Gods existance. The very fact that we exist, shows it is possible that God exists. God is a rational being, with thoughts feelings, emotions; as we are.

The fact is that more and more people are letting go of their beliefs by challanging them. Questioning is the first step to letting go of religious beliefs.

You cannot know if there's a god or not. It's just a belief. It's only a hypothasis.

Also religion does not promote peace. It promotes war. You can never get everyone to follow one belief system and if you cannot accept people who turn away from religion then that is going to start up confrontations.

Religion is dieing, Religion is losing it's followers and I for one see this as a good thing. Since people are waking up to reality with a new view, With a new prospective. I'm happy to hear that pete is challanging his beliefs. once you start questioning, You begin to see reality.

There is no god or anykind of afterlife and more and more people are accepting that. People are turning away from religion mainly due to lack of evidence.

I started turning away from religion when I was threaterned hell. As soon as I was threaterned with eternal torture I started turning away and then I looked to science. I've been this way for years.

I am a strong atheist. I cannot know there is no god but I can say that I'm certain.
Just like you cannot know there is a god, Your just certain.

The non-religious population is growing fast! More and more people are turning away from religion.

Hurry for Atheism!

[Tiberius]

I am a strong atheist. I cannot know there is no god but I can say that I'm certain.

Surely that is a contradiction? What I also don't get concerning you and strong atheists is that you yourself convinced me that atheism wasn't a belief, but a disbelief.

Your discussion at Richard Dawkins' site led me to this post which clearly states strong atheism as a belief. Not wanting to bring up any previous arguments, but could you verify your position for me? It seems that you do not wish to say you have a "belief" but you align yourself with strong atheism, which as far as most atheists seem to be concerned, is a belief.

[Ace Otana]

I am a strong atheist. I cannot know there is no god but I can say that I'm certain.

Surely that is a contradiction? What I also don't get concerning you and strong atheists is that you yourself convinced me that atheism wasn't a belief, but a disbelief.

Your discussion at Richard Dawkins' site led me to this post which clearly states strong atheism as a belief. Not wanting to bring up any previous arguments, but could you verify your position for me? It seems that you do not wish to say you have a "belief" but you align yourself with strong atheism, which as far as most atheists seem to be concerned, is a belief.

Strong atheists are just like weak atheists. It's just, Instead of being on the state where you just don't know, as a strong atheist you are certain but acknowledge that you cannot know.

It's not a belief. There's no claim. It's a strong position opposite from theistic claims.

Strong atheist is just a stronger position of atheists. No one from the atheistic point is claiming anything. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, that being the theist. Atheists simply dismiss the claim, So it doesn't really matter how strong of an atheist you are. We all on the same level. Stonger atheist is just someone who is more convinved that there is no god.

There is a level which richard used to describe your position. 1 stating that you claim to know there's a god, That your 100% sure, as in you KNOW there's a god which this is claiming. 2- which states that you strongly believe in god but acknowledge that you cannot know, but you are certain. being certain leave's a tiny gap where you acknowledge that you cannot know and that you could be wrong.

5- is a state where you don't believe in god but far from certain. This is the position where your leaning towards atheism.

6- is a state where you are an atheist, Your not certain/sure that there is no god so you cannot be seen as a strong atheist. This is a weak atheist position.

7- is a state where you are certain that there is no god BUT you acknowledge that you do not know and cannot know for sure. This is a strong atheists position.

8- is a state where you KNOW there is no god. This is claiming. This is being absalutly sure of yourself that there is no god, that you know. This is claiming.

I am on level 7. I'm certain but acknowledge that I do not know for sure.
You can be certain there's no god but you cannot know there is no god.

I'm not claiming anything. So it does not make it a belief. I just don't believe the theist claims, I'm simply showing strong certainty of that.

Understand? This is also a debate that took place on richard dawkins site. You can be certain, but you cannot know.

When you say you know, your claiming! So yer, I'm one level below this one. I'm not claiming anything, I'm just certain that there's no god. At the same time I acknowledge that I do not know for sure.

There is a differance between certain and knowing.
I'm certain but I do not know for sure. FutureAndAHope is claiming to know there is a god. I'm on the certainty level that his claims are wrong.

See?

[Tiberius]

I'm pretty sure Dawkin's scale is a 1-7, but I get your point. I think my confusion stemmed from the word "certain" usually meaning something about knowledge, but Dictionary.com says otherwise

In that case I'm pretty much a strong atheist as well.

[Ace Otana]

I'm pretty sure Dawkin's scale is a 1-7, but I get your point. I think my confusion stemmed from the word "certain" usually meaning something about knowledge, but Dictionary.com says otherwise

In that case I'm pretty much a strong atheist as well.

We may be weak or strong in our views but we all agree with one main thing. There is no god.

We may dis-agree with some views and agree on many others but it's our main common agreement, that being that god does not exist which is the one main thing that we all can agree on.

I'm certain that there's no god, Some other atheists wouldn't be so strong with that conclusion. Also the meaning of the word certain and knowing is something that shouldn't be mixed up. There's a differance between those two words.

Which I also want FutureAndAHope to confirm what he said. He claimed to "Know" there is a god and so after making such a huge claim, I now need evidence to take him seriously.

Shouldn't mention "Know" if you have nothing to show or support your claims.

[Eilonnwy]

I know God exists, I also know most attacks on Christianity are baseless. The baslessness of an attack is what anoys me. People who are drawing others away from God by misrepresenting the facts.

I also know that Christianity is the only way for nations and people to live sucessfully; so it anoys me when I see people drawing people away from this.

But it does not anoyme that much, otherwise I would not be on this forumn.

As for arguments for Gods existance. The very fact that we exist, shows it is possible that God exists. God is a rational being, with thoughts feelings, emotions; as we are.

I'm reading this amazing book, It's called Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She escapes from her Islamic life in Africa and seeks Asylum in Holland. In her country, Somalia, for a woman to show any bit of skin is a sin. If you wear a short sleeve shirt, you're naked. To show skin is to tempt men, arouse them. And to arouse them would cause men to stop working and being productive. It would bring civilization to it's knees. This is what Islam believes, and many people who are Islamic believe the only way to live is in an Islamic state. When she went to Holland this belief was shattered. Women were half naked on the street and not only was the government working but everything was better. The streets were cleaner, the bus came exactly on time, etc...

You would probably argue that Christianity is different, but honestly it really isn't. Christianity teaches that women are less than man. They are made from man's rib, they tempted man with the apple, the list goes on...

What makes you think your theocracy is better than theirs? Remember, there are people wholeheartedly believe the only way to live is in an Islamic country probably more so than you believe in your theocracy. What makes your Christian theocracy better? Maybe the women don't have to cover themselves up head to toe, but honestly in the fundamental way the bible treats women, I don't see much difference.

[Jason Jarred]

*Please* would all staff and crew take their places, we are ready for scene 3 of Religion Gone Wild.

Lights...camera...action!

Religion Gone Wild, Scene 3

I know unicorns exists, I also know most attacks on Unicornism are baseless. The baslessness of an attack is what anoys me. People who are drawing others away from unicorns by misrepresenting the facts.

I also know that Unicornism is the only way for nations and people to live sucessfully; so it anoys me when I see people drawing people away from this.

But it does not anoyme that much, otherwise I would not be on this forumn.

As for arguments for unicorns existance. The very fact that we exist, shows it is possible that unicorns exists. A unicorn is a rational being, with thoughts feelings, emotions; as we are.

Adrian, is it time for me to start singing?