Religion: If You Don't Believe In It Why Does It Bother You?

I like and agree with this. My later points (I hoped this would be implied) are directed at not only this forum but, as you can see from my example, while I happened to sit next to a certain person at work which is an example I'm sure many can relate to. These are the people that will strike up a conversation about it or scoff when someone makes a Jesus joke and then start ranting about religion even though somebody was just quipping that it was winter when Jesus walked on water.

That is the atheist I disagree with. It's not atheism in itself, either. I do enjoy this topic of conversation which is why I clicked here; it just sucks to not be able to tell people you're atheist when they ask you if you're religious because the atheists fly that flag high. Now I have to describe some sort of non-caring on the subject rather than use the word that was meant to describe it, because as others have said, these atheists are becoming more of a throatf*cking bunch of mosquitoes than religious preachers.

i could not care less for religion but when it comes to things like this:

i can not say that i respect ppl with that belief anymore. too much stuff happened the last couple of years.

And you won't. Like many people have stated in this thread, it doesn't matter how much you try to avoid it. It is part of people's lives today, and will be for a long while yet.

It's embodiment reaches people, and affects them differently. To some, it's positive. To some it's no so.
I cold say many things about what you have mentioned, as I am sure some my wish to do so with what I will place. But rather than have this dragged out, I'll take the last three lines and talk about them:



If they don't, then they could possibly lose out on a chance to voice on an act that might ultimately have effects on them.

A quick example June 20, NY. Two state senators in NY say no decision was made on the fate of gay marriage after a three-hour meeting behind closed doors. An act that could have a lot of impact on a lot of people. Since these people are elected to be the voice of the people. What are the arguments mainly against gay marriage?

I know, this isn't a gay marriage thread or a marriage thread in general, nor am I trying to advocate it to turn into one. Just trying to paint a small picture.
Some will argue that it is a “religious” thing.
But it boils down to that marriage is a social union, often with legal contracts between people that creats a kinship.

Modernly, many people voice their religious concerns over this – and prevent this “kinship” from being created by those outside of their precieved mentality.


Again, it affects them, a small example. If you're within the united states – take a look at your currancy. Little by little it's seeping into people's lives. By choice? Sometimes. What if its not by choice?

People are born, in some parts of united states – that still have laws that dictate parts of their lives... by laws that were pass based on religious ideals. One doesn't have to think about them, to see how they impact or change the world around them. Their enviorment – or such. Ever been to another part of the united states or another part of the world that immediately places you in a form of culture shock? How drastic things around you are. They might not share the same ideals that you have. It's likely a sure bet that they wont. So what if you carry on the same way that you always have, and it offends someone?

I'm relaying this as an example – because someone I know, visted a place and had an “experience” such as this. They carried on with their casual greeting and immediately was brought to a different understanding.

You have to be aware of people – and their beliefs because in religion or not, because it can affect everyone.


And this, because like I stated – you wont find someone like this. Like someone else stated, if they did exist – they dont interact with people, or they isolate themselves. You have to care, even if you are part of a religion or not. You have to. Why? Like I stated, religion affects everyone. Some nut with a a gun – you immediately care what his beliefs are because you dont want to be on the wrong end of them. If you are religious – you care because you dont want your serenity changed by those that dont have a liked mind.

A religion is a belief system. Atheism is the belief that nothing exists beyond the reason world (the world we live in). Atheists don't want to consider themselves part of a religion because they feel they may lose credibility as the only "smart" people. Religion doesn't kill people, ignorance and intolerance does. Granted, most religions have A LOT of that in them, which is why people perceive them as stupid or bad.

Science is based off reason (for the most part, some science is based off theories believe it or not, and may very well be proven wrong someday). Religion is based off faith. The tricky part here is that atheists claim their faith to be truth because their opponents can't "prove" their religion. Unfortunately for all atheists, with our current capabilities, they cannot prove these religions wrong either.

Atheism (at least to my knowledge) is the discredit of all religions because religions delve into an abyss of irrational and unknown concepts that science and reason can't explain (Afterlife, Heaven, Hell, God, you get the picture).

I know this was a pretty meh post and probably said like a billion times, but I couldn't resist D:

Atheism isn't a belief system, nor a belief. It's merely a lack of a belief in a god.

But you're right on one thing: faith and science are two entirely different systems and they do not mix.

I just wanted to point out that the burden of proof lay at the feet of the individuals making extraordinary claims and not the person disputing the claims.

Naturally, the retort often is that belief systems must be taken on faith yet in the lives we live nothing else would be believed so blindly.

It bothers me because it is, as Marx said, the opiate of the masses.

It affects me everyday of my life. It affects politics, the media, everything.

It's like asking a black person in the 50s, "Hey, if you don't agree with segregation, why does it bother you?"

It may sound like splitting hairs, but there is a point to what I'm about to say, and it specifically relates to this thread: Atheism (in its most commonly used form) is not a lack of a belief in a god. It is a belief in the lack of a god. There's a difference between "I do not believe a god exists" and "I believe no god exists." With the former statement, there is no argument; you have no basis to push an agenda or force any belief or pseudo-belief on anyone else. It can be a purely internal statement. With the latter... we get threads and discussions like this one.

On another note: Atheism is not science. Please stop talking about it like it is. Current scientific theory is used as "proof" or "evidence" during most atheist-versus-theist arguments and discussions on the atheist side, just as religious texts are often used on the theist side. Science exists without Atheism, just as religion exists without a completely lack of logical thought. The fact that one scientific theory cannot be proven or disproved does not mean that all of science is wrong. The same can be said for belief: Just because one belief is not readily demonstrable does not mean that all belief is wrong.

"A god does not exist, in any way, shape, or form" is not a currently provable scientific hypothesis. Neither is, "a god does exist, in <this specific form>."

Science (in its current state) does not explain everything, or even attempt to to so; neither does "religion" as the term is commonly used. Evolutionary* theory does not explain consciousness and subjective experience, neither does Christianity explain quantum mechanics.

* Note: "Evolutionary theory" in this case is meant to include both biological and cultural evolutionary theory related to change, but not spontaneous creation.

um, no.

In it's most commonly used form atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, seriously.

Without theism, common...

On another note: I never said atheism was science, however it's the only logical conclusion as faith is illogical.


As for science: it attempts to explain everything observable and has hypothesis for other things based on what's observable, but there's almost always unknowns.

However as to your last point: religion explains nothing that it can back up, so therefore it really explains nothing. It's nothing more than a "feel good" bunch of nonsense like any other imaginary nonsense (see Santa Clause) just because people are afraid of death and don't want to admit it.

[dictionary.com:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.]

[Merriam-Webster:
a) a disbelief in the existence of deity
b) the doctrine that there is no deity]

I guess we're both splitting hairs now, sorry.

Science attempts to explain everything observable, agreed. I disagree with your use of the terms "logical" and "illogical" though.

The example I stated before still stands: Consciousness and subjective experience cannot be observed or explained by science in its current state. Even the thought processes behind the discussion on this thread cannot be explained by scientific means.

Emotion cannot be observed directly. However, we each hold the belief that yes, the people around us do indeed feel, just as we do. That's belief, not science. It's not theory, because you cannot test it. You can observe and measure biological information, but not the exact feelings and thoughts behind them. If that means it's "illogical", then okay, most of our actions on a day-to-day basis are also "illogical" and have no scientific basis. I don't see a problem with this though.

The fact that I cannot directly prove that you have sentience means that it is illogical to treat you as anything but a non-sentient animal or construct?

I've already contacted webster about their innacuracy, and how their definition doesn't understand the basics of what the prefix "a" means.

As for why their definition is wrong, probably due to the fact that until the past few decades admitting atheism was social suicide so those in power kept their mouths shut.

Like Jaerik says: everyone's an atheist, just those that call themselves atheists believe in just one less god than most people.
(paraphrasing)

actually thought processes can be observed and explained, as well as consciousness. even emotions.

I see a great problem with people leading their daily lives in an illogical manner, it's self defeating and hurting everyone.

Also your last sentence is a fallacy, but nice try.

*A wild religion thread appears!*

I was just thinking it was too quiet around here lately.

Poor Scragg must feel like Jan Brady in comparison. :(

If I see a cool quote from him that ends up in I think a nuked thread so I can only paraphrase it, I'll paraphrase him too.

ps: I never watched the Brady bunch, so I don't really get that reference... then again how many people would make the comparison :D

No explanation needed. I was just being silly. :/

Hmmm...I think Ashman and I are the only ones on this site who could annihilate people at pop-culture Trivial Pursuit.

Jetackuu: Maybe it is different where you live, or on these forums in general, but the term "atheism" is most often used in my geographical and social context to mean a strong... let's say conviction that a god cannot and therefore does not exist. Using your definition, I agree: a lack of belief in a deity is a logical conclusion. I also appreciate your use of "explain" rather than "prove" with reference to science.

General: From an outside perspective, both alternate conclusions strike me as illogical: Neither "<this specific god> exists (but cannot be observed directly)" nor "no god exists" can be proven; at best, there is allowance for them to be disproven as with any other theory. But even without the parenthesized caveats, these two statements are not diametrically opposed: statements for or against the existence of a specific deity are not necessarily statements for or against the existence of any deity.

Clarifications: I don't really know how to interpret the use of the term "religion" on this thread, which I think lead to even more confusion on my part. Earlier in this thread it seemed like "religion" was being used as a synonym for "belief" (not to be confused with "faith") just as "science" was used as a synonym for "logical conclusion". I do not see "religion" and "science" as diametrically opposed, but two systems with different uses: Science attempts to explain cause based on effect; religion attempts to explain purpose.

For my previous statements about thought and emotion, I was referring to the subjective experiences of such, not the direct biological causes or results (e.g. "feeling" vs. "sensation"), with the caveat that "science" in my statement excluded "social sciences" and humanities. This caveat honestly doesn't make sense to me now; why would these be omitted from consideration? I obviously should not post after a couple glasses of wine.

that would be more of anti-theism than atheism, with regards to roots of words, however I do realize how a lot of people use the word, then again popular sure doesn't mean right.

As for that other stuff, I'll just have to disagree, and to your last note, idk.