this post was submitted on
1,195 points (60% like it)
3,513 up votes 2,318 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,207,681 readers

1,549 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

Voice your opinion: Should we have a "text only" day once a week? vote or discuss

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 299

[–]spedward 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

let's hear it for t paine

[–]pelagodoxa 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I read this in auto-tune.

[–]mathgod 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem with this is that the dead cannot be brought back. People who have renounced reason can, and do with increasing frequency, realize the error of their ways and come back.

[–]jt004c 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read the title. The point isn't to give up. The point is to not take it too personally when your best arguments fail.

[–]nalilito 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It seems like Mr Thomas Paine has to be more specific.

If a person just died minutes ago, the analogy will be taken differently. This guy has a point : http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/oiq2p/why_debating_theists_should_be_done_lightheartedly/c3hoc5k.

[–]thrawnie 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This. However, I'd say put an age-limit on it (to save your own sanity). 50-60 ought to be fine.

[–]MalaysiaTeacher 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the point is that they must open themselves to reason; it cannot be forced upon them or administered like a medicine.

[–]genesai 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are right that they themselves must open themselves up but if no one will give them anything to take in it won't do much good.

edit: I actually prefer the headline to the actual quote, though "debating" seems like the wrong word. It presumes that you are in opposition to each other which means that everyone will stay "closed".

[–]ElChupacabras666 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

wonderfully said. After all, not all atheists here were always atheists...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed. Arguments like these are not much different than arguing everyone who disagrees with you is just too stupid to know any better. We can do better.

Besides, everyone uses reason (or at least thinks they do) although they may or may not be using sound reasoning.

[–]guinness_blaine 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

''In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed!''

[–]halfus 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem with this is that not all theists have renounced the use of reason. You have to set a sharp focus for a debate so it doesn't get off track and into heated emotional/personal territory. Don't be hasty to generalize when you tout the virtue of logical reasoning.

[–]AceroInoxidable 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

When it matters their beliefs in a magical fairy, yes, all theists have renounced the use of reason. Completely.

Faith is, by definition, a blindly, non logical, non reasonable believing in a mythological being.

Period. They may use reason in other areas of their lives, but they don't do so regarding their supernatural creature.

[–]halfus 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have to disagree with you there. The whole of Catholic theology, while not premise-free, is decidedly concerned with answering important questions and explaining doctrine. As a Catholic, I have heard many naive arguments for and against the existence of God, or for utility gained from belief in God. Pascal's wager, various probability arguments, historical evidence, etc. None of these convince the serious student. It is a serious personal battle to decide these questions. Tradition and circumstance play a large role, but in modern society everyone has the same chance to come to a conclusion. As an aside, I find what has been written about the pain of loss of heaven is reason enough (c.f. "attrition", "lourdes") to believe and change my behaviour.

[–]iamnotallthatbad 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see that as a problem, but I do see it as a problem that most people can't tell a difference between theists, religionists, Abrahamists and religious fanatics.

[–]halfus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except for religious fanaticism, I believe there is a significant intersection between the first three groups you've mentioned (i.e. Roman Catholic), if I understand these terms correctly.

[–]iamnotallthatbad 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While these groups have some common aspects, there is in fact a rather fundamental difference. Many people say that they hate religion, when more likely by “religion” they mean Christianity, Islam and Judaism (Abrahamic religions). Besides that especially “theist” is often a misunderstood word and misused in the context to describe religionists (people who practice religion). It is true that all religionists are theists, but not all theists are religionists. Religionists are often bound by rules set by their religion, while theists are bound only by a philosophical idea that there is some sort of deity that can be referred as “god”.

A theist can, for example, be a pantheist: a person who doesn’t necessarily believe in a conscious god, but does accept universe (all universes in the multiverse) as god. Surely a pantheistic logic is quite rational as all life is indeed created by universe’s laws of nature and ‘everything together’ is the only thing that can qualify as perfect as there is nothing to compare ‘everything’ to.

A theist can also be a deist and consider ‘God’ as some sort of a cosmic alien that engineered life and perhaps the universe itself. At first glance this logic might appear ridiculous, but scientifically considering the structure of first living organism and assuming it had 68 genes, the probability of these genes coming together into a functional ‘program’ is roughly one out of 10229 and this doesn’t include the probability of these nucleic acids forming all in one place and probability of this cell surviving in the environment it was born in. From mathematical point of view the existence of life, at least as we see it now, by an accident is close to impossible even considering all the planets in our universe. In this respect, claiming that deists are completely illogical is rather ignorant.

[–]on_a_moose -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that a personified god exists through the use of reason (which would be why they tout "faith" as their basis for it). Belief in a personified god is a reasonable litmus for determining if someone is a theist. It follows that a theist has forsaken reason to come to that conclusion.

A generalization isn't necessarily incorrect, just because it's a generalization.

[–]philip1201 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And I suppose you've managed to logically derive a fully functional morality from ground principles? (If so, please tell me and the philosopical community).

Depending on how you use "use reason", either many theists people do, or nobody does. One of the most interesting 'debates' I've had was an exploration of faith, rather than an insistence on reason. Until another atheist barged in and started insisting that it was ridiculous for someone to continue to believe the son of god died for our sins even if we could travel back in time and discover no virgin births in the entire human species' history, rather than interesting.

[–]MadcowPSA 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Let me take the analogy a bit further:

You can still treat the dead. You just have to shock 'em a particular way.

[–]theodrixx 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

too much Grey's Anatomy.

[–]MadcowPSA 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

huh? never read it tbqh

[–]guinness_blaine 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty sure theodrixx meant the show.

[–]theodrixx 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Gray's Anatomy is the book.

[–]naker_virus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's a TV show.

[–]MadcowPSA 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ah. Don't watch much TV.

[–]banished_one 23 points24 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unlike the dead, people who have renounced the use of reason can still vote. Which is why you can't ignore/tolerate them.

[–]azripah 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unlike the dead

Ah, you must not live in the US.

[–]James_Arkham 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the bottom line is this: Don't argue with them, manipulate them. Coerce them. Use emotional trickery. That's what they're used to, being driven by fear of social isolation and eternal torture.

[–]MyriPlanet 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So they're like zombies?

Too late to give medicine, but we still have to deal with them shitting up the world in mindless, shambling hordes?

And trying to remove the brains of children.

[–]theodrixx 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah. Quote is pithy and condescending, but ultimately useless.

[–]Smooth152 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...........just like atheists on Reddit.

[–]nalilito 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ow, the irony. You hijack a comment which disagrees with hasty generalization and then you spit out hasty generalization yourself.

[–]Smooth152 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not really. Just pointingnout a fact. Atheists on Reddit, while outnumbering, are rather shallow and rude. Some generalizations are accurate. I'm friends wi atheists even though I'm an openly devout Catholic. We get along, drink together, eat together, and philosophize together. They are open minded and good people. Atheists on Reddit don't really bring anything to the table except insults which is why I made my first comment. God bless.

[–]He11razor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's not a fact. That's an opinion, and one I don't think is based in reality. I have the opinion that we are generally not "shallow" (based on all the good deeds we do, i.e. DWB). You may construe some of the reactions we have to people pushing their religion as rude, but I can't help you there. Christians think just asserting you're an atheist is "rude".

[–]mgraunk 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but Thomas Paine believed in God...

[–]secme 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

rest of the quote (there is a comma at the end not a full stop); ,or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

[–]Jswizzy84 55 points56 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was a deist. His god was impersonal and not involved in our lives. He was also living in a time before science had an explanation for the existence of the universe that didn't require a creator. I think there is a strong case to be made that if Thomas Paine was alive today that he would be an atheist.

[–]dedbodiez 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thomas Paine would be a believer. If he wanted to get reelected. Where is that list of openly atheist Senators?

[–]mgraunk 29 points30 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ok, let the downvotes begin... but I am a deist. I enjoy [r/atheism](www.reddit.com/r/atheism/) because I despise religion, like most (if not all) of you. Now that I have that out of the way, for you to say that Thomas Paine would be an atheist if he was alive today would be akin to me telling you that David Hume or Karl Marx (both from around the same era) would be deist if they were alive today. It's an entirely unfounded statement. The fact that atheists have been around since ancient times essentially proves that history's great minds do not require a scientific explanation for everything in order to denounce faith in a higher power. I strongly believe that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and the other deist founding fathers would be just as deist today as in their own time.

[–]Jswizzy84 43 points44 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My bases for my statement is that in Age of Reason, yes I've read it, Paine's reason for being a deist was that he saw creation as proof of God.

[–]elusiveallusion 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are still people who would say that. With a straight face.

[–]MyriPlanet 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except, a man who embraces reason would not. And without creation....

[–]mgraunk 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Alright, I see where you're coming from now. I still disagree, but at least you have a point

[–]Jswizzy84 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I merely said a case could be made. I didn't say he defiantly would be an atheist. It's clear that Paine rejected atheism in his time.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The fact that atheists have been around since ancient times essentially proves that history's great minds do not require a scientific explanation for everything in order to denounce faith in a higher power.

You do realize that in Western nations, up till the end of the 18th century, that the penalty for atheism was often death?

[–]mgraunk 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You do realize that in colonial America the penalty for treason was death? Our founding fathers had no qualms about standing up for their beliefs in the face of danger.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can you name a single American from the 18th Century who espoused atheism openly?

[–]laughterreleasesfear 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

sometimes cake

[–]pastreference 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For me, deism was simply a stepping stone from Christianity (with which I was raised) to atheism (labeling oneself with which is almost as nonsensical as labeling oneself a non-stamp-collector), because once I acknowledged that historically deities were fictional entities that faded as cultures containing other fictional deities superseded them, there was no longer any credible reason to cling to belief in a less personal form of these fictional deities.

It's as simple as whether or not belief is warranted without evidence. Would you believe in unicorns without credible evidence? Russell's teapot? Would you believe there are more atoms in a glass of water than there are stars in the entire visible universe without any evidence? If so, you're gullible. Yes, there's a word for it, and it occurs in degree. We're all gullible--some more than others.

Belief without evidence is folly. Are you entitled to your folly? Of course. We all have our share of it, and we're all allowed some degree of it. However, it's frustrating to those of us who have put forth great effort to minimize our own folly to see the world twisted and perverted by the often willful ignorance of those around us whose large quantity of folly is commonplace. The majority is not well-informed or thoughtful. It is a gullible group of homo sapiens that has little interest in reason, science, or its own future beyond the few minutes it can see with any significant clarity--even then, often poorly.

Also, is there any significant difference in how one should choose to live one's life between atheism and deism? The deity of deism being impersonal and not interfering with the lives of humans, would that deity not behave in exactly the same way toward us that the non-existent deity of atheism would behave?

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My belief that some omnipresent entity exists is comparable to some peoples' belief in alien life forms elsewhere in the universe. The best "evidence" we have of alien life forms is the possibility that water may have once existed (and may still exist) on Mars. Beyond that, belief in aliens is completely circumstantial and amounts to guesswork. I don't deify anyone or anything. I don't claim to "know" that there is a creator or god of some sort. But this belief leads me to question my surroundings, seek further answers, and push the limits of science. If that's "folly" to you, so be it. We can respectfully discontinue this conversation.

[–]pastreference 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Kepler knew he would find evidence of God's existence in the orbits of the planets around the Sun. He was absolutely certain, and that certainty drove him to collect enough data that he eventually discovered the correct orbits and admitted he was wrong about them evidencing God. So long as your scientific endeavors always remain scientific and your beliefs, no matter how strongly or weakly held, do not interfere with your conclusions or your application of the scientific method, we can respectfully discontinue this conversation. Otherwise, we can still discontinue the conversation, but I will reserve my respect for people who deserve it.

[–]laughterreleasesfear 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I bet Jefferson would do yoga. Franklin would own a grow house and dispensary, with the bombist ass weed, Poor Richards Purps. Thomas Paine would kill himself if he saw what we did with his country.

[–]mgraunk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

true... but TJ would be growing some dank ass nugs too

[–]MyriPlanet 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I personally believe that the founding fathers would still support slavery and insist that black people are technically only three fifths of a person.

Evidence: They believed it growing up in the 1700's, so they'd believe it growing up in the 21st century for sure.

[–]mgraunk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, most of the founding fathers expected slavery to die out on its own. Even those who had slaves never expected slavery to explode at the rate it did in the early to mid 1800s. None of them openly opposed it, to my knowledge. However, I do believe that Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and many other "founding fathers" would view today's slave-less society with relief. I highly doubt they would support it.

[–]MyriPlanet 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's my point.

Assuming they'd still be deists because they were deists back then is like assuming they'd still write laws allowing for slavery because they did it back then.

Also, you really, really can't say someone was 'against' slavery when they literally owned slaves.

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's why I didn't. Although not all the founding fathers owned slaves. Ben Franklin, for example.

[–]MrEctomy 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I strongly believe that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and the other deist founding fathers would be just as deist today as in their own time.

I'm also a Deist, and I believe this too. Honestly, the depths of our understanding of science only made me a more committed Deist - when you start to understand the amazing nature of the universe, along with other awe-inspiring scientific discoveries: quantum weirdness, string theory, the hubble deep field, the fibonacci sequence...these things only reinforce my belief that some kind of supernatural force must have set things up this way. A clockwork god, to set in motion the "awesome machinery of nature" (R.I.P. Carl)

[–]mudpizza 6 points7 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have nothing against deists, the idea makes so much more sense than all the religious bs. However, I am personnaly not very satisfied by the fact something even more complicated and even more amazing has created the universe. Unless you believe it's all turtles down. You quote Carl, but he specifically said it was better to 'cut the middle man'.

[–]someredditguy 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree completely. Perhaps if there were not this big war between 'Christianity' and 'Science', people would be more open to understanding our perspective.

[–]orangegluon -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unfortunately your kind is not very well around these days; either because Deism is so quiet by its nature or it has dwindled off, we don't hear about deists anymore. That's not to dissuade you from your convictions or to reinforce them, it's just a point.

In all likelihood, the chances are that Jefferson, Franklin and Paine would not be deists; they would have been absorbed into a much larger group. This could most likely be people who call themselves "agnostics, not atheists," but some may call themselves atheists and a few would probably move mostly into mainstream Christianity or even some eastern religions.

The fact that these people were deists in their own era is largely because that was a semi-conventional idea. Now that particular theology feels sort of underground. Granted, they would not likely be scientologists per se, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the idea of predicting how historical figures' views would fall in the modern spectrum of controversies and contexts.

[–]DazzlerPlus 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Mostly because there is no reason to believe in a god these days without a strong religious influence. Or a great lack of imagination.

[–]someredditguy 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personally I think the only reason we don't see more Deists today is because classical education has been replaced by a narrow curriculum of highly concentrated naturalism. From which was born Reddit, a paramount example of this curriculum.

[–]James_Arkham 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can't_tell_if_troll.jpg

[–]DoorsHarmony 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My imagination focuses on many things. Religion is on the back burner while I try to cook up other things. Intelligence to me, is best used toward what you believe you're good at. Science, religion, arts... Drift wherever for all I care.

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What I mean by lack of imagination is that all religions that I am aware of are extremely anthropocentric and in their essence boil down into a simple idea: If something happened, somebody must have done it. It takes a lot more imagination to envision a universe without agency than one presided over what is essentially a man.

[–]barker76 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Mostly because there is no reason to believe in a god these days without a strong religious influence. Or a great lack of imagination.

You forgot religious experience through psychoactive and hallucinogenic chemical manipulation. Many theistic views are very imaginative - they are just not founded in or supported by a communicable experience of reality.

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know. I have had more than one friend lose his mind because of psychoactive substance and turn very religious. Though it seemed like they had pretty novel views in their voluminous essays, it was really nothing more than a hodgepodge of spiritualism gathered from whatever source and lumped together. Sort of like a magpie.

[–]orangegluon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I remember being told in Current Events in 8th grade that some anthropologists believed that went Moses went up the mountain to get the 10 commandments, all of his people were doing opium or some related substance from nearby poppy seeds or something.

(not a drugs expert)

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Perhaps. But then again, you don't really need a source of drugs outside of your own brain when you are in a crowd.

[–]orangegluon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

tell that to rave parties

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, I've read that it was psychedelic mushrooms. From my understanding, psychedelic mushrooms have been known to grow wild around Mt. Sinai. Also, mushrooms and other hallucinogens were supposedly pretty common in ancient religious practices. Supposedly some Inuit religions still make use of hallucinogenic reindeer urine (because the reindeer eat psychedelic mushrooms) for some ceremonies.

[–]orangegluon 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's probably what it was, 8th grade was a while ago and my memory's probably fuzzy.

I have heard that people get high off of reindeer piss, I think I saw part of an Attenborough documentary clip about it. Drugs are pretty much ingrained in human culture, it's no surprise that so much of religion is so bogglingly crazy.

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You definitely have a point there. My defense of their deism was simply meant as an assertion that there is really no evidence that they personally would choose atheism over deism today. I do believe many of them would be agnostics, unitarians, or moderate Christians today. And yes, some would probably be atheist, while some would probably still be deist

[–]orangegluon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"meant as an assertion that there is really no evidence that they personally would choose atheism over deism today"

"I do believe many of them would be agnostics, unitarians, or moderate Christians today. And yes, some would probably be atheist"

If you believe some of them would have different beliefs then they hold now, you are basing that idea on the premise that there is evidence for thinking they might have a different frame of mind. I hope that's why you think that, because there is evidence in the form of letters, speeches and actions recorded by and recorded about the historical figures in question. Though we can't tell with complete certainty, I do think there is enough evidence for people willing to research the subject to speculate about it.

I'm not just nitpicking to be an ass here; I want people to have a much more open view to learning and to allow empirically-based speculation in different topics to be as scientific as possible about legitimate questions when a cold answer is not available. I don't want people to be afraid of extrapolating plausible ideas about anything just because none of them are certain, especially when those plausible ideas are in fact based on evidence and rational arguments. We don't have to buy into them completely, but isn't a tentative "probably" better than "you can't make a claim?"

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know you're not trying to nitpick, but I really don't see how speculation and research into what some historical figure might believe today is really a constructive use of time or energy. I'm not blindly believing that any specific founding father would hold any specific belief if they were alive today, but I'm also not actively trying to find out for certain

[–]orangegluon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No one can find out for certain; it's not quite immediately productive but it's interesting. It's an attempt at knowledge isn't it? And say new evidence arises for something, say previously undiscovered letters or diaries, that revise these theories. It shapes our understanding of the foundation of the country and its philosophies, even if by only small nicks and cuts. Theoretical string theory research and hypotheses about the cause of the dwindling of frogs over the last 10 years don't have certainties either, but at the least they are interesting, and at most the pursuit of answers may be more practical in the long run.

You can be a deist, you can believe Washington and Abe Lincoln and Genghis Khan were deists, I couldn't give a damn. But I encourage people to answer questions as much as possible and to answer as much of a question as possible.

[–]Bijan641 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think there are far less deists in our day and age because of science. We have enough evidence now that people tend to be more polarized in their religious beliefs. Its not unreasonable to assume that many of the deists from that period would be atheist.

[–]apivorus 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was also living in a time before science had an explanation for the existence of the universe that didn't require a creator.|

Science now has an explanation for the existence of the universe? Astounding! Enlighten me.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

This is a very rewarding video to watch - long, but rewarding. Not a bulletproof explanation, but one that at least shows that a universe from 'nothing' is conceivable.

[–]mgraunk 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's conceivable, but this is still pretty much conjecture. If I was to use Russell's Teapot on you, you'd have to admit that until there is more concrete evidence of all this, there is no solid reason to believe this hypothesis any more than the hypothesis of a creator of sorts. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this has no more solid credibility than spiritual belief

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did you watch the video? The idea is reasonably well inferred - hardly Russell's teapot. Sure, it's only mathematical, but the idea now is that the scientists look for evidence and alter the theory as they see fit. Step one is a greater understanding of dark matter and energy.

[–]mgraunk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My spiritual belief works the same way. It's not the blind faith of religion. The idea is that that I look for evidence and alter my beliefs as I see fit (in other words, I alter my beliefs as logic dictates I must). Step one for me is a greater understanding either of what occurred before the Big Bang, or how time works.

[–]apivorus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a very rewarding video to watch|

Long, long ago. The gratuitous pot shots at religion are off-putting. Other than that, yes, very neat video.

Frankly, what I was hoping for was a response along the lines of; "Geez, apivorus, CERN finally figured out what the 'possible Higgs boson' data means. The universe is a result of thus and so. Where have you been?"

Alas.

[–]someredditguy 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why does a completely blank comment have 4 upvotes? What is going on here?

[–]PotatoesAndCabbages 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've used it in the past, why would that cause a blank comment to have 7 upvotes?

[–]PotatoesAndCabbages 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is a picture hiding there...

[–]Peritract 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was also living in a time before science had an explanation for the existence of the universe that didn't require a creator.

A time like now? We still don't have explanations for the existence of the universe that are more rigorous than "God did it" or "No, God didn't".

[–]poopystinkybutthole 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And in the future he might have been what they find to be correct.

[–]thesorrow312 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But not religion. He was an Anti Theist Deist.

He HATED religion.

In defense of his Deism, back then, evolution nor the big bang theory were not known. SO while Occams razor still applies, there was not enough information about the origins of human life during Paine's lifetime to without a shadow of a doubt say that there is no need for god to explain things.

I'm sure if he was alive today, he would be an atheist anti theist.

[–]KompressorDosntDance 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason:" Chapter 1...

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

You would all do well to read "The Age of Reason" in it's entirety.

[–]mdweihl 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Deist.

[–]Hypersapien 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty much everyone was a theist before we got the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution. That doesn't mean they were Christian.

[–]mgraunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Pretty much everyone" is still theist. atheists make up a negligible portion of world population. Granted, many people who are theist are too uneducated or oppressed to question religious beliefs, but it could be argued that the belief in a higher consciousness of some sort is integral to human nature. From my understanding, atheism is not a catch-all category for people who dislike Christianity. While a large component of atheism is opposition to organized religion, the quality that DEFINES atheism is the rejection of belief in any higher power of any kind

[–]Universus 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thomas Paine never got to read Darwin.

I'm confident if he did...

[–]finest_jellybean 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love how he is quoted all the time by r/atheism. Irony maybe

And for the guy saying he would be an atheist. He rejected atheism. Someone can just as easily say that Nietzsche would be a deist if he was alive today.

[–]spork_o_rama 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think that supposition about Nietzsche is anywhere near as likely. If he could be a staunch atheist even without Big Bang/Evolution as backup, why on earth would he suddenly believe in a god now that our understanding of our beginnings has taken such a giant step forward?

With that said, I do think it's a bit hasty to put Paine in the atheist camp retroactively, but it's fun to speculate.

[–]Peritract 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

now that our understanding of our beginnings has taken such a giant step forward?

It hasn't. It stuns me that people still misunderstand the big bang. Our understanding of the moments that we assume took place directly after the beginning, if there was a beginning, and if it was directly after, has taken leaps forward.

[–]spork_o_rama 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Excuse me, I was imprecise. This is what I meant, but I appreciate the correction.

[–]finest_jellybean 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Easy, Neitzsche was a philosopher. There has been a lot of philosophy that has come out for both deists and atheism. Paine was also a philosopher. New advances in science dont do much to make or break someone when it comes to faith. Im saying that each statement is equally as valid. Both would probably be as they were back then, but we could obviously never know.

[–]James_Arkham 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We can never know =/= Equally valid.

Nice try, deists and theists everywhere.

[–]mgraunk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We can never know =/= atheist. Sorry

[–]spork_o_rama 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I never really thought of there being "advances in philosophy," but there definitely have been. I just never really saw it that way. Thanks for stretching my brain a bit.

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

not...really

[–]PirateWay 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To anyone saying that Thomas Paine would be an atheist if he were born in today's society, remember the opposite is true as well, you would most likely be a theist in the time before science.

[–]phillycheese 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I totally agree, which is why it's so crazy how we still have theists these days.

[–]BaroqueBeldam 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lol fail, he was a deist. :) Awesome quote though!

[–]remygibson 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh my God, I love T Pain

[–]RebelTactics 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Point taken Mr.Paine. On that note I don't debate theists or care to indulge in that muddy fight. I'm not even good at it. I would most likely get hit with questions I wouldn't know how to answer except by saying I have faith in science (oh the Irony).

[–]Supertrinko 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Remember that it's easier to teach the people watching your argument, than it is to teach the one you're arguing with. When you're arguing with someone, they're biased, they don't want to lose an argument, so they'll ignore what you tell them.

It's why public figures such as Richard Dawkins talks to such people, so that you can watch an argument unfold, without that bias of needing to win.

[–]buzzbros2002 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's only good if you're trying to create zombies.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The reason our forebears believed in God was because their ignorance was genuine. There is no excuse today.

[–]googolplexbyte 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep, it's best to just laugh at them until they are to embarrassed to go on.

[–]dafuqshit 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why debating theists should be done lightheartedly.

huehuehuehue good troll

this entire subreddit does this every hour of every day

[–]ClockXIIwork 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I tried lightheartedly administering medicine to the dead...then the government revoked my license.

[–]Sicarium 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am so proud of my family :)

[–]anstromm 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I came to bring the Paine hardcore from the brain

Let's go inside my astral plane

[–]nothanksimfine 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh you silly guys. We do give medicine to the dead. Epinephrine, atropine, amiodarone, sodium bicarb, calcium chloride, narcan, dextrose, and don't forget electricity! Oh and I forgot mag sulfate.... someone needs to take ACLS again....

[–]pterodactylogram 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i love how he's got a little smirk on his face, like he was captured mid-argument...

[–]Stupidconspiracies 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I read that as "Why debating atheist should be done lightheartedly"

[–]g33k1nd159153 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My take on this: http://imgur.com/AoqDu

[–]Tendow 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Should try taking this over to /r/QuotesPorn

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another favourite of mine from Thomas Paine: 'Time makes more converts than reason.'

[–]TerraHertz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]stalkinghorse 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]ProSoviet 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This quote is appropriate for me

[–]bluemirror 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

like it

[–]Buh-Buh 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lol! That quote was directed at atheists.

“Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.” ― Thomas Paine

[–]Outofmany 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is good advice to anyone on reddit. And we are all irrational at times anyway.

[–]fischestix 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's funny... the other day while administering medicine to a dead person I thought... "this is a pointless as arguing with a fundie"

[–]Handsaw 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read as why debating a thesis should be done lightheartedly.

[–]lulzors 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Time spent arguing with the faithful is, oddly enough, almost never wasted." ~ Chris Hitchens

[–]Mordred19 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I prefer: "if you're going to tell someone the truth, be funny or they'll kill you"

[–]Ft3030 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Suffer fools lightly."

It's almost like you could learn some valuable things from that book if you had an open mind.

[–]HiZenBurg 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So true, this attitude has made my life a lot easier.

[–]McRawffles 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you're trying to religions in a general sense as theists, but that's not actually the correct terminology. Theists are those who believe in a higher power. For example, I am somewhat of an agnostic theist. I don't know whether or not there is a higher power out there, but I believe that there might be.

[–]solidiquis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am a theist, and I have not renounced the use of reason. In fact, reason has lead me to believe that we are intelligently designed. Do I believe in the whole bible shpeel? Probably not, but I do believe in a creator. If anyone is up for a debate I'd be glad to oblige.

[–]Irish_Coffee 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except, however, you still shouldn't concede respect to a bad idea on the premise of appearing 'open-minded'.

Theistic flaws are not always blatant to the unawares, and even then, they are attempted to either be concealed with peace-love rhetoric that contradicts the source doctrine, or outright avoided.

Criticism is necessary, and sometimes insulting. If an argument is solid enough, it will stand well against them.

[–]venkmanman 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here's the funny thing, that's EXACTLY why debating atheists should be done lightheartedly as well.

[–]shenpen 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

OK this is exactly the kind of arrogance gives /r/atheism or even the NA movement a bad name: people recognize correctly that their crazy fundie uncle renounced reason and assume all and every theists including the most learned ones do the same.

Meanwhile, everybody else more or less knows that the assistant theology teacher they had a beer at a party with five years ago, was not an enemy of logic (although he had strange views of empiricism) and therefore - correctly - recognize that such overgeneralizations are unfounded and people who make them are arrogant and vain...

[–]AceroInoxidable 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

their crazy fundie uncle renounced reason and assume all and every theists including the most learned ones do the same.

Yes, they do. Even the most learned ones. If they are theist, they are renouncing to reason if they have blind faith in a mythological being. Period.

[–]holygiraffes 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religious folks use logic. Trust me, I'm one of them.

[–]juicebox_[!] 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You just dove head first into the lion's den. Be prepared for people telling you how it is impossible for religious people to use logic.

[–]holygiraffes 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just now regret that decision. Oh, well.

[–]DazzlerPlus -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its a pretty easy leap, considering how incredibly illogical religious belief is.

[–]juicebox_[!] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel you man/woman (Kinda sounds a lot worse calling a woman "woman" as opposed to calling a guy "man". wait what am i doing here...oh yeah...). I'm just saying you can't discount people completely because they are religious. As in saying they can't use any logic or reason whatsoever.

[–]DazzlerPlus 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Of course. Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Its not that religious folks can't use logic in any capacity, its just that they certainly do not use it on their religious beliefs.

[–]finest_jellybean -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most of us actually do. Sorry if we dont believe what you do. To each their own.

[–]AceroInoxidable 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, you don't. Explain logically the believing in a supernatural being controlling your life. I dare you. Use reason to explain your faith, if you can.

And no, you can't. You believe in a magical fairy and there's absolutely no logic in that.

[–]finest_jellybean 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So much anger from someone who cant form an argument of his own. Sorry if your own shortcomings makes you express anger at people who arrive in believing due to logic. I never said he controlled my life. I would like to know where I said that. Is it that you can only win debates when you use strawmen? First, when the big bang occurred, the chances of there being a universe is astronomically low. The watchmaker argument, but I can see the other sides position on this one. The fact that man cannot conceive of something greater than itself. The very concept of mind vs matter. How closely the Bible follows how our universe began and life evolved (not talking about creationism here). Not to mention that I have experienced things personally that could only be attributed to a God. I know I cant prove that, but the very idea that God would have to be scientifically explained is illogical in and of itself.

[–]AceroInoxidable 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know where you see the anger in my words but go on, keep seeing things that aren't there - theists are good at that.

people who arrive in believing due to logic

Faith is by definition the opposite to logic. That's the reason it's called BLIND. You don't think, reason or use logic in a mythological being belief, you just belief.

The Bible follows closeley how our universe began and life evolved

OK, if I can stop laughing at any point I'll let you know.

I have experienced things personally that could only be attributed to a God

Emotions there. You see, theists can't use logic or reason when explaining their fairy. It's all emotions and blind beliefs. And that's all.

[–]finest_jellybean 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you skipped over a lot of my post. Your anger is quite apparent. Or at least frustration that people hold different ideas and opinions.

Its not the opposite of logic. Some people say stuff like blind faith, I dont see why it needs to be. I use to just have blind faith, then went through a 3 year period where i questioned everything i believed in. God's existence made way more sense to me than atheism. Notice how i used both examples of logic and of faith. They are not mutually exclusive.

You want to stop laughing? Logically think of the different stages that the Earth went through, and how life evolved, then read the beginning of the Bible. Again, im not talking about creationism here. I know you have to make all Christians out to be the same since you dont have any logic on your side yet, but its not going to work.

And again, I provided reasons. I through in faith for the very reason that both make up why i believe. Please continue to disregard things you cant argue against. You seem quite good at that. Cheers

[–]naker_virus 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A large number of scientists believe in God. They all know how to use logic. Logic is merely a system to be used to try and discover truth, but it is not a system that applies to all situations. Like any system, it has its limitations. So it isn't an easy leap to say religious people can't use logic, the statement is in fact completely illogical and short sighted.

[–]DazzlerPlus 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you trying to imply that religious beliefs are beyond the scope of logical examination?

[–]AceroInoxidable -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, they are. Of course religious beliefs are beyond the scope of logical examination. How do you plan to logically scope the belief in a magical fairy?

[–]AceroInoxidable 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, it isn't. Faith can't be logically explained. Theists can use logic, but not when it matters their beliefs.

[–]DoorsHarmony 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My old buddy's dad is a burnt out hippie who fell into addiction in the 60's he later played a role in developing treatments for some kinds of cancer with his vast knowledge of physics and medicine. Still among one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent people I've ever met. Family of creative genius. This guy made a leap of faith I couldn't understand because, despite his vast knowledge of how the world works, he's a born again christian. (LSD? The guy kicked it with The Doors and Janis Joplin) Logic and imagination can mix to many wild roads of perception.

[–]nalilito 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

tldr;

I think, the point is, the bad guys are are the people who are pushing their unreasonable or unproven beliefs and treat and push their belief/religion as if they are "knowledge".


Well, as atheists, we cant rule out theists' god either, right? :) though, Hermione has a point that that defense is quite absurd if we really think about it. http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/228930_265418530140272_169541156394677_1304872_8340853_n.jpg

I think it depends if he says he "believes" in a personal god or he "knows" that there is a personal god. When someone says they "know" things, they do crazy things, especially when selling them to other people.

You cant really berate theists who responds with "ahhh.. eh.... ahh..." or "oww.. i can't actually prove that though...", when you ask them questions which requires knowledge or logic.

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Imagine if he had made a leap of faith in medicine. Would you trust his cure, even if he is very knowledgeable?

[–]BringInTheDownVotes 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Straight men use anal beads. Trust me, I'm one of them.

[–]Jesus_is_watching 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

IMPOSSIBRU

Nah, just kidding. I'm the same way.

[–]StubbornGoat 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Soooooo I'm relatively new to Reddit and I was just wondering.... would I be punished if I challenged ya'll to a debate of some sort (I'm a theist) or is there a subreddit for that? It wouldn't really be a debate I guess, more of I link ya'll to a video of me laying out my case for theism I guess and ya'll giving input of some sort (hopefully to the contrary of what I believe).

[–]IAmNotAPerson6 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would recommend /r/DebateAnAtheist. But seriously, be prepared for massive attacks on any and all arguments you have.

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tis not the first time I've tango'd with the Balrog that is an intelligent atheist.

[–]IAmNotAPerson6 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yet once more, I regret not having seen any LOTR movies.

[–]StubbornGoat 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

-_- You win this round man/woman who is not a person....

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Problem is, it gets to be a tag team ;)

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Does this mean that there's a lady Balrog!?!?!?!? O.O I would die from the awesomeness!

[–]DazzlerPlus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All balrogs are ladies.

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Or maybe all ladies are Balrog's.

[–]Peritract 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are unlikely to raise that number here.

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Or perhaps I could throw the ring into Mordor and take you all out at the same time dramatically increasing that number.

[–]DrPhilly 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even better (in my opinion) than /r/debateanatheist is /r/debatereligion.

[–]StubbornGoat 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And why is that?

[–]super__mario 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religion has already been falsified thoroughly. Why don't you just go out and read all the evidence. Look at the reading list in the FAQ and then come back if you have questions.

[–]StubbornGoat 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've been doing this for about 5 years now and I've only heard that a few thousand times from adults and students alike yet when I probe into the depths of the true intellectual knowledge of what they supposedly know, I come out the victor and as such I have come here to debate an age long issue.

[–]super__mario 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your move, why are you a Christian?

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You'll have to wait till I actually link my vid for ya'll to see. Should be thoroughly enjoyable, if you have the patience to wait.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]StubbornGoat 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Muahahahaahahahahhahaha dumps liquid hydrogen and oxygen onto fire

I enjoy abuse good sir like little boys enjoy drowning ants with their pee. O.o

[–]l0khi 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why the hell do you use so many ASCII emoticons?

[–]StubbornGoat 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Uhhhhhhhh, I'm an odd kinda guy who doesn't generally post on sites like this? I guess it also kinda displays my personality? Who knows, maybe it's for the heck of it.

[–]MantraMan 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are getting more and more militant and insulting by the day. I have been a subscriber to /r/atheism for some time, so I can see your arguments and try to have a nice conversation from time to time, because I like to discuss this topic.

For people who pride themselves in their "logic" you do the basic mistakes of generalization, reductio ad absurdum and god knows what else.

Way to become the equivalent of /r/feminism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You can't argue with someone who can't even curse properly.

[–]quoque 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Could also read 'why debating atheists should be done lightly', because any truly reasonable and rational person should concede in the vaguest possibility of a god. </troll>

[–]GodExistsFools 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Saying that theists have renounced their reason is a faulty argument. For reason by itself is what compels a person to believe in God in the first place. The only thing that theists fail to do by their reasoning is to prove God is real. But just because you can't prove something doesn't mean its not real. Take for example nature, we cannot prove how it exists but it just does, we cannot explain it even though we theorize heavily on the subject. So either way its 50/50, the atheists cannot prove nature and the theists cannot prove God. In the end, it all comes down to a persons own free choice based on reason. Both could be equally logical according to each individual. The question is, "why would I choose to believe or not to believe in God?"

[–]Riceater 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

1.) You're saying you believe because we can't disprove? This is where the spaghetti monster and boogieman come into play.. I can't disprove or prove their existence but with reasonable certainty one can say they don't. If someone comes up to me and says he's the son of God and that I must worship him and his father and love them both or I'll spend an eternity in hell burning in fire and being tortured, then I think I have a right to see some proof. God sounds extremely narcissistic to me.. to create billions of people with the sole purpose of worshiping him or face eternal torture, I can't really think of any other way to put it.

2.) Are you really trying to use an extremely general term like nature, which we can see all around us, we can study, we can touch, smell, etc. to a God? Something that has remained elusive to every human being on Earth and supposedly is only revealed to us after death? Awfully convenient if you ask me.. BTW, we have theories and we have LAWS of nature. Next time you take medication for a cold or for your cholesterol, keep telling yourself our understanding of nature is merely "theory".

3.) You can believe whatever you want, I don't particularly care. What annoys me about most religion though is that people will denounce and ignore all of the centuries of scientific evidence that has stacked up from all over the world from generations of religious and non-religious people that has by and large contradicted the traditional consensus of these ancient religions. Many can't stop at simply ignoring these facts, they think that they have some divine responsibility to tell the rest of us how to live (i.e. abortion, stem cells, same sex marriage, etc.). I don't believe because it's impossible for me to. If I tried I would merely be lying to myself and if God does exist I don't think he'd want me to believe solely on the fact that I've been told to by my parents or my preacher.

[–]super__mario 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, you can either win the lottery or not. Therefore it's 50/50 you will. You are so incredibly stupid, it boggles the mind.

[–]AceroInoxidable 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Believing in the existence of a magical fairy is using reason? Really? Either you don't know what BLIND FAITH in a mythological being is, or you don't know what reason is.

[–]super__mario 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ever heard of celestial tea pot argument? So much ignorance and such confidence.

[–]heartandskull -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Uh-oh, another persons logical conclusions gives them a result I disagree with, they must not be using reason.

typical condescending atheist standpoint

[–]Ebeneezer_McUpvote -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Merry Christmas! Have an upvote ^ _ Q

[–]geekstrada 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jesus fucking christ. Either SeaOfChaos is a troll or lacking a dictionary. I renounce the belief that SeaOfChaos understands logic.

[–]ionveau 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How dose this relate to atheism?

[–]ziggmuff -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ah yes, another display of atheists, trying so hard to make a point of their own, with the words of someone who never meant them that way. Paine is probably rolling in his grave. These displays are no less deceitful and dishonest than the news on tv or tabloids on shelves. Get real, buncha fakes.

[–]A5dr3 -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah. That's great asshole. Why don't you discuss the foundations of reason with one of the thousands of Christians who hold doctorates in philosophy? More than half of philosophy professors in us and uk identify their worldview as theistic. - Naive, unread, pseudo-intellectual faggots. I've never debated one of you in front of your friends without you regretting it.

[–]deejayalemus 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What is the first business of philosophy? To part with self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks that he already knows. ~Epictetus, Discourses