[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 61 KB, 442x675, atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1004536 No.1004536 [Reply] [Original]

Does anybody else hate the terms "atheist" and "agnostic"?

There really shouldn't be any term to label people who don't believe in God. They should just be referred to as normal people and everybody else should be referred to as "theists". Seriously. The existence of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

/rant

>> No.1004554

Well, to be normal is to believe in a god or some deity or some shit, since religion has been around for thousands of years in some form. In the past the only people who seriously considered the idea that there is no god were philosophers, and they were a very small minority. So normal people are religious.

>> No.1004552

Since theists are in the vast majority, they are more "normal" than atheists/agnostics. So shut up.

>> No.1004559

Does anybody else hate the terms "man" and "woman"?

There really shouldn't be any term to label people who have balls. They should just be referred to as normal people and everybody else should be referred to as "chicks". Seriously. The existence of the words "man" and "man" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

/rant

>> No.1004568

>>1004552
there was a point when it was more normal to burn "witches" and heretics at the stake than to not give a shit about people making fun of your sky fairy

>> No.1004573

Does anybody else hate the terms "straight" and "heterosexual"?

There really shouldn't be any term to label people who don't shove cocks up their asses. They should just be referred to as normal people and everybody else should be referred to as "fags". Seriously. The existence of the words "straight" and "heterosexual" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

/rant

>> No.1004585

>>1004568
We should start burning theists at the stake. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

>> No.1004588

So basically you are saying there shouldn't be a name at all because atheists are the "normal" people. You are the reason religious people think that we atheists are self absorbed assholes. Fuck you.

>> No.1004603

>>1004554
No if you raise a child without any religious influence are they going to conclude that a god made the universe? i dont think so. what ever they believe is "normal" but atheist is stupid because it means without gods, assuming that these are evil people who have been abandoned by the almighty

>> No.1004609

Does anybody else hate the terms "human" and "goldfish"?

There really shouldn't be any term to label people who don't live in goldfish bowls. They should just be referred to as normal people and everybody else should be referred to as "fish". Seriously. The existence of the words "person" and "human" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

/rant

>> No.1004622

To be absolutely sure there is no god (defined as a greater being that humans in all the universe that can exert unlimited control on us) is unscientific folly.

To say "I'm not going to bother with belief or disbelief in a god until such time as tackling the issue is necessary" makes more sense.

The raging under-21 college kid atheists are the former.

Respectable, logical atheists are the latter.

>> No.1004621

>>1004603
Pretty much this. The default position is atheist therefore it should just be referred to as "normal". Everybody else is just bonkers.

>> No.1004633

>>1004603
>No if you raise a child without any religious influence are they going to conclude that a god made the universe? i dont think so.
If this were true, religion would have never risen in the first place.

>> No.1004649
File: 75 KB, 579x797, monkeys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1004649

>>1004633

>> No.1004652

>>1004633
No religion was invented by the powerful to give the common people something to believe in and prevent them from overthrowing the government, also by a lack of ability to explain our world.

>> No.1004655
File: 103 KB, 646x720, 1274523397080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1004655

>>1004649
Whoops, wrong picture.

>> No.1004661

>>1004652
derp
Religion was around long before the type of government you are describing.

>> No.1004666

>>1004652
You are thinking about Christianity, not religion in general.

>> No.1004682
File: 118 KB, 800x530, AtheistMotivation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1004682

>>1004536
>The existence of the words "atheist" and "agnostic" make it seem like there is no default stance. There IS a default stance. The default stance is to be FUCKING NORMAL.

No
atheists should be called sub-humans, pseudo-intelligent entity`s or retards.

THEY ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE !!!

>> No.1004691

I AM SO SMART I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD

WHY AM I SO LONELY

>> No.1004695

>>1004661
When we had organised religion those kind of governments did exist. as for that belief in a supernatural power not a religion that is like i mentioned before the only way our puny minds could explain the complexity of the world

>> No.1004699

Well is there proof that there is not a god? No there is no evidence for or against any god, but given the burden of proof it is upon the claimant to provide evidence. Given that if they can't you assume that there is no god you are assuming that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence which it is not. Skepticism is all about evidence, as my stance on religion is as a freethinker/skeptical realist. So that is why there are these terms, it is because of the abstract nature of the idea that it is so hard to grasp unlike the argument of not doing something or not having something which you can have and can be empirically tested right now; existence of god can not be tested at the moment.

>> No.1004700

>>1004652
The second part is right. The first part didn't come about until later. Read:

>>1004655

>> No.1004742

>>1004699
Well is there proof that there isn't a Santa? Etc etc.

The normal, default stance is to not believe in a Santa/god. However, OP's post is just retarded.

>absence of evidence is the evidence of absence which it is not.
Yes it is. It's EVIDENCE of absence but it's by no means PROOF of absence. It is, by its nature, impossible to disprove the existence of ANYTHING with *100%* certainty.

>> No.1004770

>>1004699
Where is the prove that laws of nature are constant and always have been the same ??

>> No.1004778

>>1004742

Carl Sagan and James Randi would have to disagree...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

>> No.1004792

>>1004770

I am not asserting this...

>> No.1004818

It's simple, I don't label myself as anything. If someone asks, I am simply 'not religious'.

>> No.1004844

ITT the OP doesn't understand what atheist means

>> No.1004838

>>1004778
So then you're saying that it's wrong to say "Santa has no evidence, period, so Santa probably does not exist"? Are you saying that it's illogical to believe that there isn't a Santa based on a COMPLETE lack of evidence over thousands of years of searching?

>> No.1004854

>agnostic
>doesn't believe in god
fucking /sci/

>> No.1004858

>>1004818
That's the problem. You shouldn't have to say "not religious" because that makes it seem like religious is the default. You should be saying "im normal" and if someone asks a Christian what he is he should say "not normal".

>> No.1004873

>>1004778
>implying that's an argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance is only when trying to convince people that you're correct. That is not what I was doing. I don't know if a god exists or not. By its very nature it's impossible to know conclusively. It's also conclusively impossible to know if I live in The Matrix or not, or if the world and everything in it was created 10 minutes ago. However, it is logical to assume that, given the lack of evidence, it's PROBABLY not true. That is not an Argument from Ignorance.

>> No.1004880

>>1004838

No that is fine, but as the video stated if you are trying to prove a negative, you can never say for certain that it is the case. This is why the burden of proof remains on the one claiming the process, not the skeptic.

>> No.1004913

>>1004873

I am not asserting that either, it is just to show that in cases an atheist can make this logical fallacy as well.

>> No.1004949

>>1004913
Oh, indeed, it they're the retarded type that say "hurr god can't exist dat's impossible durr."

The way of the scientist, however, is "no evidence, no reason to believe."

>> No.1005022

>>1004949

Of course, this is the skeptics approach, not the basement dweller approach.

>> No.1005041

>>1004559
>>1004573
>>1004609
Samefag

Not funny. Not even close.