Thats funny, To prove anything that doesn't exist, all I need to ask is the proof that it does exist. No proof of existence of something implies it doesn't exist. It's not the other way around. About me, I'm raised by a father who is atheist and a mother who is extremely religious. When It came for me to chose a side, I picked up atheism, because my logic says it makes more sense to me. I, however, do not question others faith or paint them with the same brush for what religion or beliefs they follow. For me, everyone has a right to follow what s/he believes. I also refrain myself from arguing with people upon their faith. I found the light (of logic and knowledge) myself, I let them decide what is best for them. And the same way I don't need people to tell me what freaking religion is the best and what should I follow. 1 world, so many people, so many religions, so many gods, all of them are true god made religion while every other is a lie, a man made creation. lol.
It's very much different. It's as different as disbelieving pixies exist is to believing they exist. That is the magbnitude of difference we are talking about. Your inability to recognice difference that big isn't actually an argument for anything. Well one thing that separates them is the claims they are making. One is making the claim that a magic man in the sky sent his son to planet earth to be tortured to death by Romans. The other is saying what the name of a queen was. If you came home one day and there was a note saying "your mum called, phone her back" would that not inherently be more likely to be true than a note that said "the dog is running for president"? Because atheism is the REJECTION of the claim that a god exists. Much like your rejection of the claim that pixies exist. You wouldn't say that your belief regarding pixies was "the same" as the assertion that they exist. But for some reason religious beliefs are given this special protection not given to any other claims. Prove to me there aren't pixies. Is the belief that they don't exist equal to the belief that they do? Just because you continuously ignore this point doesn't mean i'm going to stop making it. Stop giving religious beliefs a free pass. It's impossible to prove a negative. If that's what the religious are relying on their facile beliefs are weaker than i thought. The thing is, I don't need to prove something doesn't exist to reject the claim that it does exist, so long as the assertion has no evidence. I'll explain this to you one more time is as infantile language as i can. If someone makes a claim that is supported by no evidence what-so-ever it's perfectly logical to reject that claim. For instance, If i made the claim that right this second there are fairies in my living room and we are watching a special tv that shows us TV from the future would you disbelieve that claim? Claims aren't entitled to consideration simply because they have been made.
See, unlike Stox, you logic makes sense. His logic is that since he is right, everyone else is wrong. My point is, he should not be judge and jury of others religions. My total point to him was that he has no more right to tell someone else their faith is wrong than a religious person has to tell him he is wrong. I guess though he is too interested in fairies to see that logic. As far as Atheism, many say they are just to piss people off or to rebel against society or parents. Your logical view is well respected and the fact that you choice to respect others to have their own opinion is what all people should do. Finally, you see no evidence that a God exist; however, millions people do and so it is similar to the argument rather the planet was flat or round. Until there were methods to prove one way or another, no one could say without a doubt either way. You respect the fact that I can not prove one way or the other and I respect your opinion that a God does not exist. It is the ones who are so bent on discarding all others opinions on either side of the argument that causes me to question them.
No, my logic is that i am going to reject assertions so long as there is no evidence to support them. Just like you do with fairies. Except for some reason you assume religious beliefs are entitled to special considerations which shouldn't be afforded to fairies.
Reminds me of the people back in the 1700's who laughed at the notion that man could fly. We all know what happened there. Just because you cant touch or see something it doesnt mean it isnt there. Be rightback folks, im throughing paper in the air, by the time it comes back down it will form a dog.
You aren't saying the logical approach would be to accept the assertion without evidence, are you? Does it also remind you of when Galileo was put in prison for disproving the churches unsupported, dogmatic belief that the sun went around the earth? what are you talking about?
Not to comment anything on Stox. But you're right on your point, one should limit his faith, whether in existence or non-existence of God, to himself. The positive discussion is 'Why I think my faith is right' but It takes an ugly turn when it becomes 'why I think your faith is wrong'. It may sound the same to many people, but it's not.. These days, its a hot trend to claim to be Atheist/Agnostic. College students like me, think it's something cool to be an atheist.but it disappoints me when I see that many do not have an independent thinking. They are atheist because it's cool thing. I remember from my childhood, my father had a really hard time being an atheist, in a society that was very religious. I asked my dad, why he is an atheist, and he started explaining his thoughts on how religion founded it's roots in society, how it was necessary at times for human kind to survive, how it transformed into something, some people used to command the society, how it gave some people too much power and how they abused it and how we got where we are now. I listened and it made sense to me. I beg to differ, millions of people do not see evidence that God exists, they however do not question the lack of evidence. They believe that God exists. And most of them, for their faith, do not need evidence of any kind. And it's their choice, I respect that.
Not really a choice when most have had their belief imprinted in their brains because they've been indoctrinated on their parents religion at the same time as they learned to speak, and even before they've been taught most basic things.
I would still say choice. Parents religion, or anyone's opinion doesn't matter. People born with one religion stamped on them, but later they switch to another. Some decide to switch to atheism, some decide to stick to one they were 'born' with.. All of these are choices.
I don't agree. That is true in some cases but not for most. If everybody was not raised with a religious education/environment it would be completely different.
Some do, Most don't. The vast majority of religious people raised in a religious family continue with their parents religion, just like the vast majority of religious people adhere the religion associated with their country (americans are christians, Iranians are muslims). Most of them are "raised" to believe something either by their parents or the society they grew up in. There is very little in the way of thinking for ones self when it come to religion.
I agree one hundred percent! It is a choice. I have seen many people raised one religion and change to another. Even if many stick to what they were taught and raised on, it does not mean that they gave up free choice.
I'm not sure about Canadian education system, but not all countries have religious educational environment. Now, I'm not saying that their choices are from independent thinking. Sure it is influenced by the facts how, where and by whome they were raised, but it, with all regards, is their choice.
But you also made the case that their "parents religion.... doesn't matter". If their parents religion didn't matter we would see an equal number of muslims coming from christian families as we see coming from muslims families, And this is patently not the case. The trend suggests those raised christian remain christian, those raised muslim remain muslim. The overwhelming factor determining the religion someone has as as adult is the religion they were given as children.
And why is so?? I'm curious.. Do you eat the same kind of food your parents eat? Do you wear same kind of clothes your dad wears? Do you live in same country your parents live?
LOL He will argue with you just to argue. You are an atheist and now he is arguing with you. He will pick any little word you say and take it out of context just to have something to argue about. Your points have logic but that is not enough for someone bent on being right rather they are or not.
No not really. My mum is a vegetarian and my dad loves chinese food. I can't stand noodles or veg (except peas). not in the slightest. I am English, And no that wasn't a "choice". But no i don't. My parents are currently living in southern Spain. Are these genuine questions or are you just getting a bit silly because you got pulled up on something you said?
Atheists aren't pack animals like the religious are allout. Unlike the religious we don't feel obliged to agree with anyone who happens to have the same views on theology. It's called thinking for yourself. Good job too, otherwise we would find ourselves in tricky situations like polite teen did when he felt obliged to defend paedophiles, abusive husbands and rapists on the grounds that they happened to share a religion with him.
You have chosen to answer with specifics. My question was in general. And yes they were genuine.. Generally, people eat the same kind of food, in general, which is popular in society, save for favorites. Wear the same kind of clothes (although not fashion wise) but it is still Trousers, Shirts, underwear etc. And Most of them live in the same country as their parents. So to imply that they do not have a choice of what they eat, wear or where they live is a wrong assumption just because it's something their parents or people in society do as well. Back to topic, its not necessary for one to choose a different religion from their parents or society or majority of people to establish that they have independent choice. If you imply that, then my choice of becoming an atheist is in question as an independent choice, because my dad was an atheist. So to have an independent choice, I must have become Buddhist or Muslim or anything that my mom and dad weren't. But I know that wasn't the case. What I'm now may be influenced by my father's thinking, but at the end it was my choice and an independent one. All the choices we make in our entire life are influenced by something or other, but the choice, still remains independent and personal. So when it comes to make a choice about religion, Parent's religion doesn't matter, people choose it because they find it right for them, however influenced. Because If they hadn't found it right, they would have changed it, as many do.