Also about Religion-10We don't need proof to re elect him, God and Bible has already made him president again so you must accept it amirite?
Also about Religion-174We should
eliminate liberals from the US and make America the next American Taliban. Instill religion into everyone. If you don't follow Christianity PREPARE TO GO TO JAIL YOU ***. The middle east is a perfect example of great things happening when everyone follows god. amirite?
I've been able to reason with those who are religious and with those who are non-religious
I've also faced instances where I wasn't able to reason with those who are religious and with those who are non-religious
in short, reasonable and unreasonable people exist in both of those groups
I give you credit for always "fighting the good fight" when it comes to religion. Of course I seldom agree with you, but still I admire your dedication.
I agree that "reasonable and unreasonable people exist in both of those groups" I find that I have difficulty reasoning with anyone who thinks that "faith" is a valid argument, To me, a faith based argument is equivalent to saying "because I said so."
Looking at it from a non-bias point of view:
-The only thing that is certain is that no one really knows for sure what the fuck is going on
-religious people believe they have an idea...I.E a god
-atheists believe that shit happens
-at the end of the day....both parties believe they know more than the general population. Atheism is like the SAT's, to first score a 0 one must know all the right answers. Therefore to claim that believing in nothing isn't a form of belief is contradictory to logic.
A lack of belief isn't belief in the same way that a lack of water isn't water.
Yes it is. No, wait, what?
Atheism is a rejection of religious faith. Not a belief in itself.
it's more than a rejection of religious faith; it's the belief that there are no deities.
Religion is a belief because there is no logical or rational reason to believe that a deity exists, hence faith. Atheism is simply the absence of religion; there isn't any belief replacing it.
you, my friend, are thinking of agnosticism. There isn't any support that a random chain of chemical reactions created life either, in case you were wondering.
Atheism has nothing to do with a person's belief on how the universe or life began, other than to say that it wasn't magic. And the support for that assertion stems from everything we've learned in the last 500 years.
There are a lot of ideas that atheists cling to faith on for example-multiple universes. There is no good scientific proof of multiple universes, which is the best way to argue against the fine-tune theory.
Again, atheism is not an indication of any beliefs. Atheism only means that a person rejects religious belief, particularly belief in a deity. An atheist doesn't necessarily believe in evolution, multiple universes, or the big bang. I could be an atheist who holds no beliefs about the origin of the universe or life, other than the belief that it wasn't God. Maybe my belief is just that we don't know anything, and that's perfectly fine with me because we don't have to know and knowing won't change anything.
I agree that athiests don't have to belive in evolution, or multi-universes. The majority do however. Some atheists may hold a Descartes view on knowlege I don't know, but the majority does not. Good points though I understand what you are saying.
I believe religious faith is worthy of rejection.
If the post said "You can't reason with the religious about religion because religion is unreasonable," I would still disagree, but perhaps less so. To me, this sounds extremely closed-minded, which I think is a bigger issue than whether or not religion is reasonable.
Closed-minded in what way? If you're referring to the generalization that all religious people are unreasonable, I can see why you'd call that closed-minded. But if you're referring to the assertion that religion is unreasonable, that isn't closed-minded at all, it's an observation.
Faith is, by definition, unreasonable. If there was any reason to it it wouldn't be faith.
Faith is not the opposite of reason. That is a fedistic type of view. Any well respected theist scholar won't hold that view. It refutes itself and leads to anti-intellectualism wich is a problem in the church today. I an evangelical would admit ro that.
Would admit to anti-intellectualism not fedism. (Sorry for misspelling)
If a belief must be taken on faith, then there is no reasoning behind it. If there were, it wouldn't take faith to be a believer, it would simply be knowledge that God is up there. The moment it becomes reasonable to believe, faith is no longer needed.
I agree that fideism is absolutely not the way to go.
I was referring to your first idea. Although I do think that saying observations as if they are facts is quite absurd, whether it's in favor of religion or lack thereof.
How is that less closed-minded than someone who won't listen to you about atheism?