Lets debate atheism.

[peyotecoyote]

I'm not religious, but I'm not an atheist.
I subscribe to the idea that I just don't know, that I'm clueless. Put a label on it if you want.. agnostic, stupid, ect.

but It seems theres alot of god and bible bashing in this forum, which is cool because thats why its here, to debate religion.

"oh god killed more people in the bible than satan did, why do you christian's believe he is so great."
"hey guys look at all these flaws in the bible, where is your god now?"
"jesus didn't do his job bla bla"
"people die every day because of religion"

not talking about anyone in specific or hating on anyone's opinion, just something i've noticed, on this forum and talking to people who consider themselves atheist.

But here is my question.

If atheists don't believe God is real, then why do some of them put so much time and energy in talking about him and criticizing him? Just because some believe no proof exists that he - (any type of higher being) is real does it mean there isn't proof that hes there?(cliche, I know.). Aside from the dictionary definition, what in your guys opinion makes atheism not a type of religion/belief/mythology. And finally, Atheist's, seem (in my opinion) quick to point out flaws in religion, but does that make their belief perfect?

again, I'm not trying to attack anyone.

[notthecheatr]

Because I'm not only an agnostic atheist, an ignostic, a secularist, and a rational empiricist, I'm also a concerned citizen who finds religion to be a disturbing phenomenon even as widespread and "normal" as it is?

Atheism is not a mythology or mythological belief because it does not propose any supernatural forces or mystical beings which are not supported by evidence. In short, atheism is not a myth because it lacks all of the key elements of myth: fiction, impossibility, and a (at least moderately) good story.

I never claim my belief to be perfect, but many religious people claim theirs to be.

[Diogenes]

Atheist's, seem (in my opinion) quick to point out flaws in religion

Petty indignation, general prejudice, and a sub-conscious fear of being wrong comes to mind.

[notthecheatr]

Petty indignation, general prejudice, and a sub-conscious fear of being wrong comes to mind.

Not really.

Actually, in noticing that atheists are quick to point out the flaws in religion, the OP ignores the fact that we are also quick to point out the flaws in other superstitious or pseudo-scientific belief systems. Not all atheists, but the rational empiricists among us.

Granted, there are those atheists who are not rational empiricists but truly are anti-theists; people who became atheists in order to criticize theists. While I share many of their criticisms, I disagree with their motivation. My motive for criticizing religion is the same motive for criticizing homeopathy and other forms of quack medicine; skepticism of evolution, global warming, immunization, and other important scientific discoveries; witchcraft, voodoo, and spiritualism; et cetera. It's also worth pointing out that my motive for criticizing your religion is the same as my motive for criticizing all other religions, and if you're anything like a lot of religious people are, you actually share that motive in common with me, and are merely inconsistent in its application.

[Diogenes]

Not really.

Really? As I've pointed out in the past it's rare to ever see an atheist apply the same indignation to another atheist spouting nonsense.

Atheists are quick to point out the ' many ' flaws of religion...but turn a blind eye to the stupidity of statements made by themselves and other atheists.

[notthecheatr]

Really? As I've pointed out in the past it's rare to ever see an atheist apply the same indignation to another atheist spouting nonsense.

If I see someone spouting nonsense, I'll point it out. I don't take into consideration whether or not a person believes in God in my analysis of their ideas. Case in point here. And here. And I can think of other examples on this forum alone, but I'm not going to look them all up. I'm not the only one either. If you don't see it, it's probably because you aren't looking. There's no universal "atheist club." I disagree with many atheists on many different things. Unlike religion, in which there is a clear, standard, central doctrine to which all adherents must more or less agree, atheism is not so simple. Atheism means "no theistic God" - beyond that, there is a lot of room for disagreement.

Atheists are quick to point out the ' many ' flaws of religion...but turn a blind eye to the stupidity of statements made by themselves and other atheists.

Sometimes I refrain from pointing the flaws out, because I think they are less harmful overall than the flaws of religion, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to them. And again, there are many atheists I disagree with on many topics. The fact that we share a common disbelief in a magical man in the sky does not mean we are necessarily united on even a single other doctrinal position.

[Diogenes]

If I see someone spouting nonsense, I'll point it out.

I never said it doesn't happen...only that it's rare.

[peyotecoyote]

Actually, in noticing that atheists are quick to point out the flaws in religion, the OP ignores the fact that we are also quick to point out the flaws in other superstitious or pseudo-scientific belief systems. Not all atheists, but the rational empiricists among us.

I agree with you there, I didn't mean to generalize all atheists.

Granted, there are those atheists who are not rational empiricists but truly are anti-theists; people who became atheists in order to criticize theists. While I share many of their criticisms, I disagree with their motivation. My motive for criticizing religion is the same motive for criticizing homeopathy and other forms of quack medicine; skepticism of evolution, global warming, immunization, and other important scientific discoveries; witchcraft, voodoo, and spiritualism; et cetera. It's also worth pointing out that my motive for criticizing your religion is the same as my motive for criticizing all other religions, and if you're anything like a lot of religious people are, you actually share that motive in common with me, and are merely inconsistent in its application.

I feel that unless one has ultimate knowledge of everything, and has answers to everything, then it's not very fair to criticize someone else s beliefs. Sure you can criticize the way people have acted who subscribed to that belief ; Islamic extremists, the corrupt kings of the middle ages who had "divine authority" to do inhuman things, the list goes on.
However, I believe that in most those cases, their actions betray the most fundamental principles of their religion.


I say blame and criticize the man before the idea. God, Allah, or any other deity I don't think, ever came out of the clouds, hovered in the air and said, "My people go to war with the non-believers!"
It's always those in charge who use religion and god (whether god is real or not) as a tool to get those to go to war for them. I

[Diogenes]

Granted, there are those atheists who are not rational empiricists but truly are anti-theists; people who became atheists in order to criticize theists.

I would argue that most atheists came by atheism the same way most theists come by their beliefs. Through ignorance, peer pressure, environment, society, and rebellion.

Although I know most will deny this...and have, when I've brought it up before.

Every atheist ( that I've ever met ) will claim that they came by way of atheism though a battery of examinations and experiments and came to the conclusion over years of discriminate testing.

Yah..right!

[peyotecoyote]

My main issue is those who blame religion for this or that.
Why would you blame an idea, a belief, a concept for death and war. It would make more sense to blame those who actually caused the deaths and waged the wars.
I don't believe that any war fought in history was waged solely because of religion. There are always other factors.

[notthecheatr]

I feel that unless one has ultimate knowledge of everything, and has answers to everything, then it's not very fair to criticize someone else s beliefs.

Question:
Do you have ultimate knowledge of everything, and answers to everything?
Follow-up Question:
What are you doing on a debate forum?

It is human to criticize. You don't have to know everything to do it.

Why would you blame an idea, a belief, a concept for death and war. It would make more sense to blame those who actually caused the deaths and waged the wars.
I don't believe that any war fought in history was waged solely because of religion. There are always other factors.

I agree. That doesn't mean religion is beyond reproach.

[notthecheatr]

I would argue that most atheists came by atheism the same way most theists come by their beliefs. Through ignorance, peer pressure, environment, society, and rebellion.

Many, perhaps. Not most. I'm not so much concerned with how a person becomes an atheist, or a theist. I just wish they would be rational empiricists. I myself was raised theist and only became atheist when the logic overwhelmed my illogical beliefs. Rational empiricism and atheism were practically a package deal for me, but they certainly aren't a package deal for everyone.

However, most of the vocal, intelligent atheists you're likely to meet on debate forums like this are rational empiricists. Whether they became rational empiricists at the same time as they became atheists or not is fairly irrelevant to me.