Trying to convince a believer is IMHO a waste of energy.
Not necessarily. Most atheists were once christians, and a lot of them converted starting with someone showing how god is not real.
Okay, I’ll bite. Cite?
I’m assuming “most atheists were once Christians” really just means “most atheists were once religious,” which–since most people are religious–doesn’t seem terribly unlikely.
It was a long time ago for me, so I don’t remember details. But I’ve heard people in my circle say the “defining moment” was the observation that the ‘obviously true’ religion was always the local one. From there, it’s a pretty short step to start asking questions about whether or not your religion is the only explanation of the world around you, and then whether it’s actually the best supported one.
But taking those steps takes work, and thought, and for many people there are more important things in their life. I’d call it less “willful ignorance” and more “willful lack of prioritization.” Especially if you’re brought up in a place where questioning it has negative repercussions.
Okay, I’ll bite. Cite?
Go to YouTube, type in atheist, watch a few videos, see how most of them were once religious. I’ll give you a few names to start with. Godless Engineer, Jaclyn Glenn, Mr Atheist. Watch their videos, preferably from the beginning, and they’ll say that they were once religious. I was a believer once, until I actually read the bible and saw what… no, that rant belongs in the pit, you can draw your own conclusions on god’s true character by reading the bible. Further research led to the inescapable conclusion that god does not, and can not, exist, not the god of the bible, not with all the attributes piled on him contradicted by the bible. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, he is none of those things in the bible, he’s not even competent. He is a made up, badly written, fictional character, just as fictional as any other mythology, and most atheists once believed in him.
Plenty of atheists and Christians, by definition, started out as the opposite position, it’s why people talk of “conversion” or “de-conversion.”
Edit: I am a believing Christian but I don’t blame anyone for being atheist or non-Christian - the Christian faith *does *require one to swallow or accept a lot of things that are extremely difficult or contradictory-sounding. And that’s before one has to sift through all the chaff to determine what is of God and what are man-made teachings that try to pass themselves off as God’s word.
I find this a tad unlikely. There could be a billion atheists in China alone, and they didn’t start out as Christians. Besides, it’s not necessary to demonstrate that God is not real to cause a person to abandon theism (assuming that’s where they started). It might be enough to point out that theism has no empirical support; that various mystical traditions are arbitrary and interchangeable.
For me personally, it was watching the movie Ghost.
Would you think it more likely if I had said that it was someone pointing them to information on how god is not real? And forget China, we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about atheists converting from religions where religion, especially the Abrahamic religions, is kind of a big deal. And yes, a lot of atheists became atheists starting with someone showing them information that god wasn’t real. That was the first step, and it’s not unlikely at all, it happens all the time, someone showing them the information, or stumbling on the information themselves.
As far as I know, it’s not possible to show that God is not real. It’s not possible to show Santa Claus is not real, either.
Then don’t generalize so sloppily. You said “most atheists”, not “most atheists who aren’t Chinese”.
I don’t get why you’re using this as a foundation premise. It’s like saying “atheists believe God isn’t real” is functionally identical to saying “atheists don’t believe God is real”, and it isn’t.
Also many scientists lack practical knowledge. For example you might have a PHD in plant biology but have no clue how to grow things in a garden.
As far as I know, it’s not possible to show that God is not real. It’s not possible to show Santa Claus is not real, either.
It’s possible, you can prove a negative with a contradictory positive. We know how Santa Claus was created and evolved, proving that he’s made up and not real. Same with god and all the god myths. We can draw a clear line from African superstitions to Egyptian mythology to the cult of Ba’al to judaism to christianity, one religion stealing from another to build their own mythology.
Then don’t generalize so sloppily. You said “most atheists”, not “most atheists who aren’t Chinese”.
You know what I was talking about and you’re just acting stupid.
I don’t get why you’re using this as a foundation premise. It’s like saying “atheists believe God isn’t real” is functionally identical to saying “atheists don’t believe God is real”, and it isn’t.
I never said that, and now you’re just twisting my words in a feeble attempt to win a pointless argument. And while the latter may be true for most atheists, there are gnostic atheists that believe is not, and can not be, real. Slight difference, but both of those exist.
That doesn’t prove anything about God, it just demonstrates that beliefs about God are of suspect validity. It’s entirely possible to believe something is true for no good reason, and it happens to be true anyway, independent of your beliefs.
In the case of “converting” someone to atheism, it might be easy to point out that religious beliefs are mere superstitions, leading that person to question his adherence to those beliefs and to abandon them, but this says or proves nothing about God, just religion.
No, I’m pointing out a major flaw in your approach, the same kind of flaw theists use when they say “atheists really *do *believe in God, they’re just angry at Him because He doesn’t let them do whatever they want.”
I agree the argument is pointless, for what it’s worth. Your phrasing is simply sloppy, and you reinforce it every time you say some variant on “proving god doesn’t exist.” And the claim that “Most atheists were once christians” is simply incorrect. To me it looks like the product of a narrow world-view that assumes Christianity as some kind of global and historical default condition. Even now, well under half the human population is some flavor of Christian.
The word atheism contains theism, or belief. Atheism is the lack of this belief.
I have not the slightest clue as to what you mean by “bothering” but gnostic as I said means knowledge.
I suspect many if not most believers believe what they got taught as children, and what their community believes. Many are isolated from any evidence against their beliefs. See for instance how little most creationists know about evolution.
I learned in Hebrew Scholl that Moses wrote the Torah, and it was given before the entry to Canaan. I became an atheist the moment I found when the Bible was really written.
Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion.
Climate change is called “weather”. Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of. And most of those issues have corrected themselves or have been made infinitesimal. Mankind has nothing to do with this planet shifting on it’s axis, or the continents shifting, which in turn creates altered weather patterns. Mankind has never had control over this, and anyone who thinks so is an imbecile. The earth has shifted and changed all of it’s life, and will continue to do so, even after mankind has long disappeared from killing themselves.
Walking on the moon. Well, I’ve watched many a program and documentary on this, including the conspiracy theory ones. From what I’ve heard and seen in these programs, if any of it is to be believed, there is more factual evidence that the moon landing never happened and was fake. Several scientists in different programs brought up the same issue on this matter though…at that time in our history, there was no protection from the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding this planet, and no living thing could have survived going through it to the moon.
I’m no scientist, but the impossible has always occurred, so there is no telling. But my personal opinion is, that it was faked. To much evidence points to it being faked, than it being true.
Science is the art of investigation into a specific piece of evidence. When people hear “science” or “scientist” they immediately think of concrete, proven facts, which is incorrect. Scientists may discover facts here and there, during their research and investigations, but they are for the most part only theorists. They take what is known, weigh it against the unknown, and postulate a theory on the matter or subject. This does not make anything a scientists says actual fact, only theory or opinion.
I personally take offense of any “scientist” telling me anything they state is fact, if they haven’t previously given rock solid evidence of what they state is true. In other words, I take what scientists say “with a grain of salt”.
A REAL scientist will give you what facts they have, the unknowns, and theories, to let you make up your own mind of whether something “is” or “isn’t”. Anyone else is a fraud or attention seeker.
That all being said…I think you have confused “selective ignorance” with personal opinion. It is YOUR opinion that THEIR opinion is wrong. If that weren’t the case, then YOU would also be stated as having “selective ignorance” because you refuse to listen to their side.
An **ignorant **person is someone who HASN’T learned something yet.
A **stupid **person is someone who REFUSES to learn something (also moron and imbecile).
An **obstinate **person is someone who firmly believes their own opinion, regardless of facts or proof, and will never believe otherwise.
A **fuktard **is someone who is stupid beyond all comprehension of being stupid, and it’s a waste of time to even speak with them, as they are unwilling or unable to learn anything, as well as understand concepts or ideals.
Wrong, and frankly discouraging to take anything written after this sentence seriously, but I’ll give it a shot.
[reads rest of post]
I feel my initial reaction fully justified.
As many of my teachers and employers I have heard comment to closed minded people–
“If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem”.
Atheism is a religion.
WRONG! And I’m tired of idiots and imbeciles (your word, so don’t bitch about it) saying it is, even after having it explained to them over and over how atheism is the lack of belief in god, any god. Even gnostic atheists, who state with absolute certainty that god does not exist, are not religious. There is no dogma in atheism, no rules, no commandments, nothing attendant in any religion. Atheism is not a religion.
Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of.
WRONG! Science has shown how pollution, specifically excessive amounts of CO2 gasses in the atmosphere, has led to global warming, climate change, extreme weather, whatever they’re calling it to get it through the heads of idiots that this shit is real.
Walking on the moon… was all faked
WRONG! We walked on the moon, whatever anomalies you can point out have all been explained by actually competent scientists. The lunar module was constructed in such a way to protect from the Van Allen belt, and we didn’t spend a lot of time there. So what other bullshit do you have for that? No stars visible? The infamous C rock? Visible cables supposedly holding up the astronauts? All have been explained so that anyone with his head not stuck up his ass can understand.
Science is… only theory or opinion.
WRONG! A scientific theory is not just opinion, but as close to objective truth as you can get. Scientific theories are proven facts. If you don’t believe this, then jump off a tall building, since gravity is only a theory.
A stupid person is someone who REFUSES to learn something (also moron and imbecile)
WRONG! A stupid person is someone incapable of learning. Refusing to learn would make you obstinate.
A fuktard is someone who is stupid beyond all comprehension of being stupid, and it’s a waste of time to even speak with them, as they are unwilling or unable to learn anything, as well as understand concepts or ideals.
WRONG! It’s spelled fucktard. But you seem to have categorized yourself here. Unable or unwilling to learn or understand concepts, that’s pretty much your whole post.
Some people will talk in clichés until the cows come home.
I think you’ll get some push-back on that here.
We also have:
- Climate change is a hoax.
- Moon landings, hoax.
“I’m no scientist”, No fucking shit.
Do you want to chuck in some Flat-Earth and Anti-Evolutionary options here? Also, Quantum Physics is some sort of “scientists’” in-joke, it’s all made up bollocks, right?
Checks join date (May 2019) this clown has lasted 7 months?
Regarding the Van Allen belt, it’s my understanding that it is indeed a dangerous place - if you linger there. The Apollo trajectories, I read, were chosen to specifically avoid the most hazardous regions and pass quickly through what couldn’t be avoided. It would not at all surprise me if the Apollo astronauts (and astronauts generally) were at a higher risk of long-term health problems due to radiation exposure, but this would be somewhat offset by the selection process that goes into becoming an astronaut in the first place - these people are generally in well-above-average physical shape and if they don’t smoke (or had to quit smoking - amusing article on the topic) in order to train, they already have a significantly reduced cancer risk.