If I'm too stupid to see that there is a god, why would god make me stupid? Okay, here's the thing. Everytime I argue with religious people, they would sometimes resort to insults as their go-to strategy whenever they could no longer find anything else to say. They would usually make it look like atheists do not know what they're talking about nor understand the teachings/doctrines of their religion. Somebody once told me that atheists are just confused people who do not comprehend the workings of god, which in turn made them to lose their faith and become bitter. He went on to say that ignorance and stupidity made atheists not believe in god.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
When you look at theists, think of them as mentally damaged people, bordering on the insane, and everything they say will start to make perfect sens from then on.
:)
Apart from the jokes, it is true they are insane, just they do not know it becuase they were mentally abused when whey were kids.
People who lost the ability to even think are not expected to see reason even when seeing it with their own eyes.
Don't expect them to understand you or even worse be willing to understand your arguments.
They see you as a lost sheep because that is what they arrogantly KNOW you are.
For some people nothing will change that.
If you're getting them annoyed you're probably doing a good job with your arguments!
Neither side is stupid, it's just that theists have generally been brought up in their religion, and childhood conditioning is difficult to throw off, even if you want to, which most of them don't. They have a support network of family/friends/church which is a big part of their lives so they have no wish to lose it.
Logical arguments aren't going to win: if logic collides with someone's world-view then the logic will lose. You see that here quite often, which is why the arguments are interminable.
There is no such thing as a "religious child", they are all just childeren with religious parents. Many of them never got a chance to choose in what or who they believe in. They were forced to follow there parents to the church, synagoge, temple etc....
Brainwashing is the common denomenator. I do respect that, they have an excuse.
"He went on to say that ignorance and stupidity made atheists not believe in god."
The first person to ever believe in a god was by definition an atheist.
"If I'm too stupid to see that there is a god, why would god make me stupid? Okay, here's the thing. Everytime I argue with religious people, they would sometimes resort to insults as their go-to strategy whenever they could no longer find anything else to say. They would usually make it look like atheists do not know what they're talking about nor understand the teachings/doctrines of their religion. Somebody once told me that atheists are just confused people who do not comprehend the workings of god, which in turn made them to lose their faith and become bitter. He went on to say that ignorance and stupidity made atheists not believe in god."
I'm sorry you've had a poor experience with religious people. Not all religions or religious people are the same, so don't be quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I didn't stop talking to atheists because of the idiocy I discovered among them elsewhere... However, I will point out that it has indeed been my experience that many atheists do not understand the actual tenets of at least my religion. Not all of them, of course, but many. I don't know how many times I've come up against atheists who say things like, "You're clearly ignorant because you believe that some bread and wine morph into flesh and blood at communion" or "You believe God created the universe for man" or "You believe in some sadomasochistic monster God" or "The God you believe in doesn't care about people" or (and this one is a real big one...) "You believe that without God, people can't be decent moral people." Problem is, I don't believe any of those things... It does get frustrating, let me tell you.
Second, God didn't make you stupid. According to the Bible, man was made upright and capable of walking directly with God. But through sin, we have since abandoned our relationship with God to seek other ways of living. We were left ignorant of God by our own devices, not His. Some have tried to find God again through various religions, and some have simply abandoned the notion altogether. Thankfully, the Bible also says that God has taken it upon Himself to seek the lost and bring them back to Himself. If anything, He is working to make us not stupid anymore.
So I should take my time to understand the tenets of your religion? And by extension, every religion? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and every other irrational belief system? Sunnis and Shias, and the other 17 versions of Islam? All 300,000 Christian sects? Just because I think there is no god I need to study all the gods invented by humans?
'According to the bible': the most stupid four words ever written, apart from all the words in the bible.
I'm sorry you got a disagree on this post. It is very well thought out and presented in a most uninflammatory way. Although, I suppose it is inflammatory to some to be preached to. I am most certain that you don't think it is preaching, but prefacing something with,"According to the bible," automatically flavors what follows with overtones of speaking from a gnostic authority, one which cannot be verified and has in fact been proven to be inacurate and inconsistent. This is not entirely the definition of preaching, but it does fit the framework. I understand that you are offering the source as what you see as a legitimate reference, but this is once again a case of special pleading. I doubt seriously that you would accept a similar primary source as legitimate... say, the Q'ran or the Bhagavad Gita. (As I mentioned before in a thread which you so far have failed to answer me in.)
I am not unsympathetic. At the age of 35 I made a descision to become a truly believing Christian, and I spent seven solid years as such. I know how powerful and alluring it can be, even to the highly intelligent (which I don't think I am, but do think you are), to have a belief in a conscious authority outside of and 'higher' than ourselves who is calling the shots. It alleviates so much of the stress of uncertainty.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I definitely had to +1 Nutmeg's post, because you can't expect that someone must obain a full understanding of your stance before picking apart aspects they find either inconsistent, immeterial, or insane.
Woohoo. 6 'disagrees'! If I get four more I'll give myself a gold star!
You have a long way to go before you qualify for membership in the Disagreeable Bastards club.
The concept of a god "creating" us like some kind of pet seems hardly noble. First of all he didn't even so much as give me any indication that he created me so he can't even boast about it. The idea of having a pet is invented by man, a small creature that cannot defend itself becomes our responsibility to defend. This is a concept created by man and attributed to a non-existent entity. The very idea of some omnipotent being in some alternate dimension that can't even convince me of his own existence having some control over my own? Really? If that were the case then the only logical point of reference would be that he would instill that information in me before I was even born. Only then would his existence have any effect on me at all.
The further concept of being told by another human (which doesn't know any more than you do about the creation of the world you live in) that some god has endowed you with this wonderful existence but didn't do thing one to make a claim to it and expecting you to believe is the fundamental definition of ignorance. That very act keeps you ignorant. The very thing you call faith guarantees your stupidity.
In the early nineteenth century it was common knowledge that fairies could take your soul and replace it with an impostor to live your life as their own. This was usually attributed to people with mental disorders. Not many believe that today, given the fact that we strive to improve our knowledge of psychology, but you'll believe in a book written long before the nineteenth century?
Theists often use the idea that we are incapable of understanding god and heaven because we can't possibly possess or process the information. The classic case of pet and master. Except after we die we'll know all about it then, implying that our death will actually give us knowledge so we will be a pet no more. I don't see it happening, I am not a pet and my death will be the absence of knowledge, not a gain.
You can have your soap box back, I'm done.
"So I should take my time to understand the tenets of ... every religion?"
Haha, well almost all study has some benefit, so I won't tell you not to.... But no, of course you can't learn everything. You're clearly taking what I said past its logical conclusion. However, if you are going to make claims about peoples' beliefs, it's best to actually know what the beliefs are. Imagine if I said "Atheists are horrible people because they believe people came from slime so there's no worth to them" (some atheists have actually said that by the way...) or "Evolution is stupid; if it's true why aren't monkeys turning into people?" That would be really frustrating for you, since those statements are clearly based on a misunderstanding of your positions. And since people are generally the same, you can safely assume that statements from atheists that misappropriate theistic beliefs are pretty frustrating too. They shouldn't get mean over it, but the frustration is at least understandable. Learning what people believe before weighing their positions is crucial.
I'm glad you agree with me, that is at least a start.
I'm not making claims about people's beliefs; what they believe is up to them. But it's not my job to understand their belief.
I don't know if this is what you meant to say:
Imagine if I said "Atheists are horrible people because they believe people came from slime so there's no worth to them" (some atheists have actually said that by the way...)
but it doesn't make sense. Why would atheists insult themselves?
You said:
"Evolution is stupid; if it's true why aren't monkeys turning into people?" That would be really frustrating for you.
It isn't. I'd assume that the individual knew nothing about Darwin's great truth, and I would advise him to study the subject.
I really don't care much if you get upset that people don't share your beliefs, tbh, just as I don't care if people sneer at pagans or cat-worshippers, or any other fantasy.
"I really don't care much if you get upset that people don't share your beliefs, tbh, just as I don't care if people sneer at pagans or cat-worshippers, or any other fantasy."
I don't get upset because people don't share my beliefs. I just get frustrated when people think they know what I believe, but they do not. It wastes time, and gets nowhere.
"but it doesn't make sense. Why would atheists insult themselves?"
I dunno, ask this guy:
"I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..." - Jeffrey Dahmer, NBC, 29 November, 1994.
But as I'm trying to explain, it would be wrong of me to project this view onto every atheist. In the same way, an atheist ought not project beliefs onto theists. That's all I'm saying, really...
Theists make a claim that there is an omniscient omnipotent loving deity and that itself contradicts logic.
All knowing, all loving and can do everything, are contradictory concepts, that cannot be applied to 1 being without breaking logic itself.
There is no generalization here, all theists are insane of believing something that does not conform to logic.
Agreed. A lot of claims that theists do are obviously contradictory and do not make sense at all, which I think make the insanity even worse. What's sad is that when you try to make theists see that, they don't seem to see what you see, but instead, they defend their old beliefs with an even illogical reasoning. Sometimes I think it's useless to talk to them about these things. I'm losing hope. Ugh
Well, people know you believe in a non-existent god. The rest of what you believe doesn't really matter.
I wouldn't ask Dahmer anything, I don't know what your point is.
Athiests don't have beliefs, they review the evidence and come to the correct conclusion. If you post on an atheist forum it's not surprising that people will argue with you.
I've had a number of similar arguments over the years with similar results. In my opinion, the moment someone starts yelling and calling names, they are admitting that they have lost the argument. So...while it might not have been a pleasant experience, it sounds to me like you won. :)
In these types of discussions, I think there is a major difference in motivation behind the two sides. As a non-church going, right handed member of the hairless house apes, I don't really have a need or desire to coerce people to believe what I believe (it's not like I could make them tithe). Whereas many theists see it as their god given duty to convert the non-believers. For example, I've been here for less than five minutes and I have already seen one thread dedicated to saving the non-believers on this forum. Its pretty much a non-starter and I'm not the least bit surprised by it.
I'll agree with the bit about it being wrong to project a view on anyone, (regardless of belief). I would also love to be able to state that I have never done so. Of course when I am debating with a theist, they are generally all too willing to tell me what they believe and I am rarely given the chance to find out what I would do. So, really, I don't have to project anything. Strangely enough, the people who are quickest to state their beliefs seem to be the ones who are the most reluctant to listen to mine. I think, again, this has a lot to do with motivation.
I am all game for meeting people where they are at...I just ask that they do the same for me.
I see that this thread is old but I noticed something:
ImagoDei:
" Imagine if I said "Atheists are horrible people because they believe people came from slime so there's no worth to them" (some atheists have actually said that by the way...) "
Nutmeg:
" but it doesn't make sense. Why would atheists insult themselves? "
ImagoDei:
" I dunno, ask this guy:
"I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..." - Jeffrey Dahmer, NBC, 29 November, 1994. "
Where exactly does Jeffrey Dahmer say that there is no worth to people just because we come from "slime"? Just because there is no afterlife does not mean that our lives are worthless.
@ Maromie
Most atheists I speak with share the philosophy that our life is as meaningful and as beautiful as we make it. No god required.
More to the point, who gives a fuck what Jeffrey Dahmer thinks? he was a serial killing scumbag, but he was fucking Gandhi compared to the deities worshipped by most of the people who come here to preach.
@ Maromie
RE: EVOLUTION - ""I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing ..." - Jeffrey Dahmer, NBC, 29 November, 1994. "
There is nothing in the above quote that has anything at all to do with evolution. Where life came from is called abiogenisis, "In 1952, Stanley Miller was working with Harold C. Urey designed an experiment to see how complex organic molecules might have formed under the conditions of early Earth. "
Metabolism - First
Some scientists believe that metabolism, in other words - the ability to break down carbon dioxide in the presence of a catalyst into small organic molecules - was how the first life developed.
Genes - First
Other scientists believe that the first living organisms were genes. These genes were single molecules that had developed in such a way as to be able to catalyze their own replication.
RNA
RNA is a complex molecule found in all living things that seems to be able to catalyze its own reproduction. Many scientists believe that simple RNA molecules developed and eventually became more complex and developed into the organisms we see today.
LUCA
Astrobiologists and biochemists want to understand something they call LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor). The idea is that all life on Earth has a common ancestor, kind of like a great-great-great-....-great grandmother.
Transpermia
Life came from the asteroids that smashed into our planet.
Volcanic Vents
Life originated around the volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea.
Electric Spark.
Life originated from lightening's interactions with chemical compounds in clay or mud.
Primordial soup.
Liquid origins of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER LIFE IS FORMED.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DEATH
Thanatology is the scientific study of death and the losses brought about as a result. It investigates the mechanisms and forensic aspects of death, such as bodily changes that accompany death and the post-mortem period, as well as wider psychological and social aspects related to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatology
Your life is worthless when you regard it as worthless. But why do that? Functionality would suggest that even a worthless life serves a social purpose. It keeps hundreds of people employed.
RE: Why did god make me stupid?
There is a wonderful Buddhist story about a kind king that lives on a hill. One day an evil witch went to the town's water supply and poisoned the well that the town's people drank from. When they drank from this water it made them hate the king. They no longer saw him as kind. They began hiding in their homes and avoiding all contact with him. Where his court was once full of visitors, now there were none.
The king, being kind, was very concerned about the people of the town. One day he had his horse saddled and he embarked on a journey down the hill to see for himself what was going on in the village. When he got there the streets were empty. He could tell people were peeking at him from behind curtains that shifted shut as soon as he looked their way.
The Kind King walked the streets for a while and eventually grew thirsty. He went to the town well and drank some of the water. Once he finished, the people emerged smiling from their homes. They rushed to greet the kind king who had returned to them.
Moral of the story.......
IF YOU WANT TO BE SMART AGAIN - DRINK THE KOOL-AID
Lily, First I'm saddened to hear that you've been insulted. It's always sad when such is the case regardless of one's position on a topic.
It's certainly a fallacy to assume that Atheists are ignorant or stupid. I have many Atheist/Agnostic friends who are well educated, and have known several who are quite intelligent as well. As such, neither of these can be cited as factors within the equation. It is doubtful that your atheism, or anyone else's can be attributed to either allegation. Your post itself makes it clear that you are intelligent. :)
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?: