FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: rwdeese on July 05, 2010, 09:36:27 am
-
The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God." Since this statement by atheists is logically indefensible, an atheist is forced to place his trust in himself. He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent. In either case, he is forced to trust himself! Can an atheist claim that he operates from such an unlimited pool of knowledge that he knows that their is no God! No! Can an atheist believe that what he knows to be true is absolutely true? No! He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions! It is a faith based upon self advancement - I am in charge of my own destiny! It is a faith that throws out basic rules of evidence used by the average rules of evidence in any court system - they wouldn't make good jurors! The reality is that an atheist would need to be God in order to say there is no God - perhaps this is the real problem! The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!
-
You took the words right out o my mouth!
-
The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."
Your logic is flawed from the first sentence. A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god. The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).
As for "moral accountability," all one has to do is take a look at the US prison system to see how silly it is to make a correlation between good behavior and religious belief (the overwhelming majority of prison inmates in the US proclaim themselves to be religious). Or you could look at the dozens upon dozens of studies that have attempted to discover a correlation between morality and religious belief -- studies ranging from teen pregnancy, divorce, abortions, young offenders, drug use, you name it -- nope, none come back showing such a correlation (some even show a negative correlation between the two). There is no correlation between religion and good behavior.
Your argument rests on a relatively unused definition of atheism, as well as on the notion that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people. One is a shaky foundation to rest logic upon, and the other is blatantly false.
-
The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."
1. No, that is agnosticism.
2. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is ignored.
3. It is a faith based upon zero evidence - it is hence, the worst kind of faith!
Your logic is flawed from the first sentence. A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god. The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).
1. I was speaking of absolute atheists.
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
3. They have faith in the idea that there is not capability to prove or disprove the existence of nonexstence of a deity - it is totally faith based.
4. Yes, you could be an atehist if it is true that there is a God - that proves that it is faith based!
5. Although it is true that the lack of belief in something may not be the same as believing something doens't exist, it is also true that to make a claim that there is no evidence is to make a statement of faith, not facts - hence, it is a non evidential faith based assertion.
-
The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."
1. No, that is agnosticism.
2. The evidence is overwhelming, but it is ignored.
3. It is a faith based upon zero evidence - it is hence, the worst kind of faith!
Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs. Any legitimate definition of agnosticism will state this quite plainly. Theism, deism, and atheism are labels of belief or lack there of; agnosticism is not, it is separate from these labels.
There is no evidence of a deity given the plain fact that the claim is currently untestable.
You cannot have faith in something you lack belief in. Again, lacking belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. There could be a giant cotton candy monster in my closet -- I personally lack the belief in such a monster; that doesn't immediately imply I have faith that there isn't such a monster. It means I lack the belief, nothing more or less.
Your logic is flawed from the first sentence. A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god. The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).
1. I was speaking of absolute atheists.
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
3. They have faith in the idea that there is not capability to prove or disprove the existence of nonexstence of a deity - it is totally faith based.
4. Yes, you could be an atehist if it is true that there is a God - that proves that it is faith based!
5. Although it is true that the lack of belief in something may not be the same as believing something doens't exist, it is also true that to make a claim that there is no evidence is to make a statement of faith, not facts - hence, it is a non evidential faith based assertion.
You have an incorrect understanding of the word agnostic. I think it would clear up some confusion if you looked up the definition. Again, agnosticism implies nothing about what specific religious beliefs a person holds, it implies a person's view of our (humans) current and potential knowledge of the metaphysical. You can be an agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic deist, or perhaps just simply agnostic.
You're throwing the word faith around like it has four thousand meanings. There is one definition -- belief without evidence. There is no current technology, test, or experiment to prove the existence of deities. If there is, please point me to it. Until a claim on the existence of deities can be tested, it is not faith-based to say we're incapable of testing it. How exactly do you propose we test for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible being? If there is no suggestion on how we would go about such an action, then it is a fact of reality that we cannot test for the existence of deities. No faith involved.
Saying there is no evidence is not faith-based. Point me to the evidence (please don't say the Bible). There's a reason religious belief is founded on faith...because the evidence doesn't back it up. If there was evidence, faith would be unnecessary or, at the very least, not the primary foundation of religious belief.
-
Based on definition, I'm an agnostic atheist.
For all I know, everything in this universe, on every plane of existence, is controlled by a single entity. I, personally, do not think that there is an entity that has majority control over things. I believe that, as humans, we base our opinions, beliefs and even our existence on the physical realm and are, for the most part, oblivious to that which I/we call the spiritual realm. I also believe that it is possible for entities to interact with the universe in ways that most, even modern, people would label as god-like out of the lack of understanding of what is really going on.
Btw, yes, I have read the majority of the christian bible.
I'm not here to defend my beliefs or attack anyone else's. :peace:
:icon_rr:
-
Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities.
It should be noted that "to recognize" involves a trust in either a person's own intellect, or in someone else's intellect, or in the recognition process itself. Depending upon the person, it may involve an identification of something as having been previously seen, heard, known, etc., or it may involve a perception of something as not existing, or it may be noithing more than an acknowledgment of some idea advanced by another. None the less, the person who embraces this "recognition," is required to trust this "recognition" as being true! Taking it further, to recognize that we do not have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of God is a statement of faith is to communicate clearly that the person has a trust in, or has faith in, the assertion that these capabilities are true - without any objective evidence that supports this statement.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs.
This declaration is a statement of faith, a trust in one's own ability to pick the correct categories of evidential proof. Having such a faith does not necessitate a specific set of beliefs - one is enough!
-
The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God."
WRONG.
He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent.
You can't have a belief without evidence (definition of faith) when it comes to the FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god. I think a mistake a lot of atheists make is sticking to this one trump card of "there's no hard evidence for a god" and forgetting that there IS hard evidence against specific, defined gods like the god of the Bible (one quick example: the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story). The FACT that there are heaps of such points against *specific* gods makes it easy for me to be an atheist.
This is where the "no evidence" claim really comes into play for me: I don't default to some mushy, impersonal god once the man-made ones have been ruled out because there is no observable way to demonstrate such a being. Thus, I don't really see the point of hanging on to the idea of a god if I can have no clue what he/she/it wants or if he/she/it is really even there. That doesn't make me omniscient, that makes me SENSIBLE.
He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions!
Okay, you're being a troll here. Atheism is a religion just like not playing football is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a hair color. Do you see how silly that is?? We base our beliefs on what is TESTABLE and TRUE, the extent to which we can know reality...and that is the best possible way for a person to go about their life, holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible.
I am in charge of my own destiny!
What's wrong with that? Owning up to your OWN mistakes, being responsible for your OWN actions, not expecting some sky daddy to tip the scales in your favor, having to actually WORK to get good things in life...
The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!
Don't play the moral card because I can clearly demonstrate how I am more moral than the god of the Bible or Koran. ;) And so is everyone else. We get our morals from what we think is best for society at a given time, and you know it. You know it because you ignore countless horrible commandments. Fringe lunatics like Fred Phelps, on the other hand, have the courage of their convictions when it comes to actually following what the Bible says.
-
Nobody knows and that's why it is such a popular topic.
Nope, it's a popular topic because those who have been able to get away from religious delusions are trying to get the rest of humanity to catch up. I find it pretty amazing (and not in a good way) that in this day and age of technological, medical, scientific, and societal advancement we still have scores of people believing in a cursed fruit tree, talking snake, rib woman, giant man-eating fish, and that god wants us to kill the infidels. You are so privileged to be sitting here taking advantage of the Internet, for example, and yet if baffles me how your mindset of our origins is stuck in the BRONZE AGE, especially since the science you love to take advantage of for said Internet (among thousands of other things) can give you solid evidence for how it all came to be NATURALLY, without god!!
That is why it is comical for atheists to ramble on an on and on and on about all this evolution and big bang and blah, blah, blah because at the end of the day it doesn't prove there is no God and we still don't know.
It proves it is possible without a god. Believers just can't stop sucking their thumbs when it comes to an afterlife and refuse to give up their god blankie because they fear that it would make their insignificant life very vulnerable.
-
Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him.
This is comical! ;D
I also want to know why the OP thinks he knows what an atheist is. You have no experience or justification and are going off of logically flawed stereotypes. I propose the real meaning behind your bullying assertions is that it makes you uncomfortable that scores of intelligent people can sincerely label your god as childish mythology.
-
Agnosticism is the recognition that we do not (and may never) have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of deities or other metaphysical entities.
It should be noted that "to recognize" involves a trust in either a person's own intellect, or in someone else's intellect, or in the recognition process itself. Depending upon the person, it may involve an identification of something as having been previously seen, heard, known, etc., or it may involve a perception of something as not existing, or it may be noithing more than an acknowledgment of some idea advanced by another. None the less, the person who embraces this "recognition," is required to trust this "recognition" as being true! Taking it further, to recognize that we do not have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of God is a statement of faith is to communicate clearly that the person has a trust in, or has faith in, the assertion that these capabilities are true - without any objective evidence that supports this statement.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it is a declaration that deals with knowledge of things rather than specific beliefs.
This declaration is a statement of faith, a trust in one's own ability to pick the correct categories of evidential proof. Having such a faith does not necessitate a specific set of beliefs - one is enough!
You're using the term faith quite loosely.
By the meaning you've given it, every single iota of knowledge of our reality is faith-based. Is your head really attached to your neck? Are you actually typing these posts? Are you awake? Are you alive?
This is a fruitless point to base a discussion on. If you're going to found a discussion on the idea that we know absolutely nothing and that this reality only exists in our minds, what do you hope to achieve by the end of said discussion? Nothing useful will arise out of this discussion if that is your foundation.
As for the meat of what you say, simply point me to the test or experiment mankind can utilize right this second that can prove or disprove the existence of deities. If you cannot point me to such a test or experiment, then there is nothing faith-based about agnosticism (this is precisely what agnosticism is -- we lack the ability to prove or disprove the metaphysical). It is a mere recognition of the reality that we lack the technology or senses to prove or disprove the metaphysical. Unless of course you're going to continue on the tirade that we really know nothing at all of this universe and everything rests solely on belief without evidence, which is, again, a foundation that does nothing for the discussion.
*If you don't point me to the test or experiment in your next reply, I'll have to naturally assume it doesn't exist and you've folded your hand on that point*
-
@rwdeese;
I have no idea who you are, you definitely sound like another poster on here with your circular and ill founded 'reasoning', but that is not worth bothering with. queenofnine's reply #9 covers much of what I think about your OP. Your own arrogance comes through quite clearly as you do NOT seem to grasp what atheism is in total. It is not a black and white declaration of no God or gods. I know no other atheists who, as you put it, "claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent". That is nothing more than an inciteful statement (not INSIGHTFUL) as I, and no others I know, have never remotely claimed any omniscience or omnipotence. As for scientific proof that explains many, if not all, phenomena religious people claim is 'prood of God', the scientists behind the proof do not claim to be omnipotent either. They state what they find, end of.
As for "He must base his faith on arrogance -because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions!" No, that does NOT play out. As already said by queenofnines, is is not a faith. I base my actions and their consequences on fact. I have worked hard my entire life, therefore I have taken care of myself, my children, own my home, and have a decent enough amount of money to live on. Not being a Christian (any religion you care to insert) I DO NOT pray to an unseen, untouchable deity and then sit back and wait for results. Christian reasoning - If the results don't come, I then say it is because God has decided I am not ready and/or I have sinned and am not deserving of it. Doesn't the Bible state "Faith without works is dead."?
You said "It is a faith based upon self advancement - I am in charge of my own destiny". Again, NOT a faith, but my example illustrates that yes, I am in charge of my own destiny. I certainly hope that you realize the Jimmy Swaggarts, Billy Grahams, Jerry Falwells, and all the other millionaire preachers and ministries certainly took charge of their destinies. They also took charge of their followers' destinies - they wiped many of them out financially and all in the name of God. You speak of morality? What did many of those godly men do with their money they raked in? Spent it to partake in just about every aberration spoken of in your Bible. Back to the "self advancement". Am I to garner from your words that you live the life of a pauper with no modern conveniences science and technology has given us? I highly doubt that, you are on a computer, so you have obviously decided "self advancement" is all right. Or maybe you prayed the right way and God dropped it all into your lap.
"The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability!' There you go with the 'faith' again, but please do not be so arrogant as to question my, or anyone else's morality! I would guess that MY moral compass points true North a hell of a lot more often than most of the religious sycophants in the world.
I think your post was intended to stir the waters, take your place behind the Queen Troll on here. Maybe you really are that arrogant and self righteous, who knows. I am just thankful, once again, to know religious women and men open-minded enough to admit there are indeed flaws in any narrow minded belief.
-
Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him. Anyways dinosaurs are still around...what it your favorite? I like the chicken.
(shaking head in utter disbelief while laughing uncontrollably)
I missed this one. Did you actually write this or am I hallucinating?! :confused1:
-
I've lived with an atheist with an IQ of over 160 for 18 years...he is my step-dad.
Cool, maybe you should take some cues from him. :thumbsup: There are statistics on the more intelligent/educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in god. Have you talked to him about it?
Possible but there are still questions left unanswered.
Why do believers cling to this need for absolute certainty?! You are aware that the more and more we discover, the smaller and smaller your "god of the gaps" becomes!
P.S. Your reply #15 came across as rambling and didn't make sense.
-
RW: The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God."
WRONG.
1. There is so much irony is this statement. Since when does an atheist claim an absolutes, yet, here, you make an absolute declaration! What is this based upon? This absolute statement is based upon you own definition. This doesn't make it wrong - just amusing!
2. ATHEISM: The doctrine or belief that there is no god: (Dictionary.com)
RW: He then must either claim a faith based on the absence of any evidence, or he must claim he is either omniscient and omnipresent.
You can't have a belief without evidence (definition of faith) when it comes to the FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god.
1. I do not know where you came up with the idea "you can't have a belief without evidence." People believe in many things without evidence!
2. "belief without evidence" is only one definition of faith, btw.
3. This so called "FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god" is certainly a statement about something "believed" to be true by you based upon your own "fact" criteria. This makes your view based upon faith! Why? Because the only way you can say this is a fact is by either being omniscient (which I doubt you are), or by placing your trust in your knowledge base, which cannot even hold 1% of the known knowledge in the State you live in, let alone the universe. Therefore, your conviction can only be based upon faith - period! This faith is a argument from silence, which, in and of itself, is considered the weakest of all argumentation! So, what if your criteria is wrong?
I think a mistake a lot of atheists make is sticking to this one trump card of "there's no hard evidence for a god" and forgetting that there IS hard evidence against specific, defined gods like the god of the Bible (one quick example: the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story). The FACT that there are heaps of such points against *specific* gods makes it easy for me to be an atheist.
So, there IS hard evidence against specific defined gods like the god of the Bible? Interesting philosophy, but it is really nothing more than a philosophical statement. It has no substance, nor does it offer concrete evidence. Even the so-called quick example "the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the creation story" isn't evidence. Anyone who has taken a few basic science courses in college knows how the "evolutionary theory" changes, morphs, and contradicts itself every five years. In fact, evolutionary scientists so disagree with themselves now that some would argue that there is no such theory anymore. If you are basing your atheism foundation on the crumbling contradictions within the evolutionary scientific community, I would say it is time to get out of the house! Believe me when I say that I am not even including the creation science community in my analysis!
This is where the "no evidence" claim really comes into play for me: I don't default to some mushy, impersonal god once the man-made ones have been ruled out because there is no observable way to demonstrate such a being.
This sounds like a statement of omniscience. So, one little finite person among the 6 billion people on this planet, has determined the only criteria that proves that there is a god or not? Quite profound indeed! Is it possible that since you have decided what the only criteria is that demonstrates a deity, you have left out the criteria that really will? Is it possible that your own pride has limited the possibilities? Your faith in your reasoning ability, which boils down to your faith in yourself, is quite amazing! One thing that studies have proven is this: all five senses can be deceived - that makes it quite unbelievable that one would place one's faith in them!
Thus, I don't really see the point of hanging on to the idea of a god if I can have no clue what he/she/it wants or if he/she/it is really even there. That doesn't make me omniscient, that makes me SENSIBLE.
Placing faith in self is really not sensible at all. This is certainly a shallow faith! It is a faith that pretends that it is based upon profound knowledge, yet, the knowledge base is so small that to base one's life on such a miniscule morsel of knowledge is like taking a class on sailing and going out the next day to sail around the world.
RW: He must base his faith on arrogance - because it is a faith without evidence - making it the worst of all religions.
Okay, you're being a troll here.
I notice you make this claim about everyone who disagrees with you. Ok, we get it - now, let's go on!
Atheism is a religion just like not playing football is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and bald is a hair color. Do you see how silly that is??
Is it that silly? Some of the most intelligent minds in America have declared atheism a religion - protected under the first amendment, in fact. Here are a few court cases that make this very clear: Kaufaman v. McCaughtry; Torcaso v. Watkins.
You may need to think about this deeper! The irony to me is that this is the same kind of mind that is relied upon to reason, think, declare a faith, establish a "god proving/disproving criteria," and believes it actually has enough knowledge to make a solid determination - wow! Do you really want to place your faith in your own reasoning abilities?
We base our beliefs on what is TESTABLE and TRUE, the extent to which we can know reality...and that is the best possible way for a person to go about their life, holding as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible.
I think this is really a half truth. I do not believe for a moment that everything an atheist believes is based upon what is "TESTABLE and TRUE." There is a book you should read. It will help you not say things so flippant "What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty" by John Brockman.
Moreover, atheists believe many things based upon their presuppositions more than objective facts. They choose only those evidences that support their presuppositions, so even if one were to present other evidence, it wouldn't matter - their faith is too strong in their presuppositions to consider any alternatives!
RW: I am in charge of my own destiny.
What's wrong with that? Owning up to your OWN mistakes, being responsible for your OWN actions, not expecting some sky daddy to tip the scales in your favor, having to actually WORK to get good things in life...
Nice deflection, however, the fact of the matter is that atheists do not determine when or how they are going to die, so they are under an illusion that they are in charge of their own destiny. In fact, even if they write out their ten year plan, they will discover that all the details of the plan will not be what they thought they would be at all in 99% of the cases. Therefore, this faith is full of illusions that seem like facts.
RW: The real reason one desires to place one's faith in atheism is this places one as one's own God, hence, freeing one from any moral accountability.
Don't play the moral card because I can clearly demonstrate how I am more moral than the god of the Bible or Koran.
Of course you can - after all, if one defines what morality is (like a God), one can declare their own righteousness based upon their own criteria. This proves my point. You see, when one places his faith in himself, one can declare what is moral or not. This is called "self-righteousness!"
We get our morals from what we think is best for society at a given time, and you know it.
Not everyone believes in situation ethics - sorry!
You know it because you ignore countless horrible commandments.
Yes, I have ignored countless commandments. In fact, I have broken most, if not all of them. The difference though is this - 1. I know that I am accountable for my actions which means I deserve to be punished, 2. I am thankful that Jesus Christ took my punishment on the cross
Fringe lunatics like Fred Phelps, on the other hand, have the courage of their convictions when it comes to actually following what the Bible says.
I would agree he has courage, but I would disagree that he is actually following what the Bible says - at least from an hermeneutical perspective!
-
RW: The basic claim of an atheist is that "there is no God."
This has already been dealt with. This isn't the basic claim of atheists, because the overwhelming majority of atheists do not hold this basic claim.
-
This isn't the basic claim of atheists, because the overwhelming majority of atheists do not hold this basic claim.
1. I doubt you have an official count on what the majority of atheists claim - this is speculation.
2. The defined claim, which lexiographers determined through a very detailed lexiographic process, has determined that the basic definitive and foundational belief of atheism is the position that there are no deities. This process is very detailed. If you would like, I will share the process with you. It is much more scientific than the claim that you are making. Furthermore, the very etymological breakdown of the word atheism confirms this fact a = no; theis = god.
Here are all those who disagree with your personal viewpoint: Atheism
Skeptics Dictionary: Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God.
Dictionary.com: The doctrine or belief that there is no god. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Merriam-webster.com: A disbelief in the existence of deity. The doctrine that there is no deity.
Urbanddictionary.com: A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Thefreediciontary.com: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Oxford English Dictionary: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
The fact is that atheists have been trying for years to redefine who they are. One can see this in "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", by Dan Barker, or "God, Freedom and Immortality", by Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards; or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin. Why? It helps them to alleviate their conscience! The redefined claim is that an atheist is not a person who denies the existence of a God, but rather a person without a belief in God. They claim that "denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept (An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, by Gordon Stein)." It sure makes one wonder why atheists so strongly contend against any theism. Afterall, if they truly hold that an atheist is a person withou a belief in god, why are they working so hard to deny that He exists - a very stgrange conundrum. The reason is quite simple - the reality is that all atheists do deny what is true. If they didn't, there would be no logical reason to evangelize those who embrace deity.
-
You have your opinion and I repspect that. However, religion does exist and their is a God. You haven't been reading about history very we'll. You have to come to your own determination, what to believe that's your choice. You are mistaken, you don't hold your own destination. What was meant for you, will be yours not for the taken, but if you've earned it. It's not your will but the higher forces will. On the other hand, If you make a choice to be and Atheis, well that leaves room for Satan to rule your life, and control your destiny. Believe me he does exist,when a person does something to hurt another without cause, whose in control? If a person decided to deceive another and take their possession and then befriend them, whose in control. And if that person feels no remorse, who do you think is in control. But if a person knows something is wrong and they feel guilt. Therefore, they will try to correct the problem. God is in control. It's very difficult to discuss our believe, because some may not agree. I you study the word, the history of the ancient creators, like the Egyptian, Roman Catholics, Buddist, and many other religious leaders. You will then find the answers you seek. Find your own way, don't just say I'm an Atheis, because saying that opens door that you will not be ready to open. The Evil one. God Bless and Good Luck! :wave: :heart:
-
This isn't the basic claim of atheists, because the overwhelming majority of atheists do not hold this basic claim.
1. I doubt you have an official count on what the majority of atheists claim - this is speculation.
2. The defined claim, which lexiographers determined through a very detailed lexiographic process, has determined that the basic definitive and foundational belief of atheism is the position that there are no deities. This process is very detailed. If you would like, I will share the process with you. It is much more scientific than the claim that you are making. Furthermore, the very etymological breakdown of the word atheism confirms this fact a = no; theis = god.
Here are all those who disagree with your personal viewpoint: Atheism
Skeptics Dictionary: Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God.
Dictionary.com: The doctrine or belief that there is no god. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Merriam-webster.com: A disbelief in the existence of deity. The doctrine that there is no deity.
Urbanddictionary.com: A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Thefreediciontary.com: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Oxford English Dictionary: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
The fact is that atheists have been trying for years to redefine who they are. One can see this in "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", by Dan Barker, or "God, Freedom and Immortality", by Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards; or Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin. Why? It helps them to alleviate their conscience! The redefined claim is that an atheist is not a person who denies the existence of a God, but rather a person without a belief in God. They claim that "denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept (An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, by Gordon Stein)." It sure makes one wonder why atheists so strongly contend against any theism. Afterall, if they truly hold that an atheist is a person withou a belief in god, why are they working so hard to deny that He exists - a very stgrange conundrum. The reason is quite simple - the reality is that all atheists do deny what is true. If they didn't, there would be no logical reason to evangelize those who embrace deity.
err "disbelief" and and "lack of belief" mean the same thing (almost every definition you listed used the phrase lack of or the word disbelief). Disbelief in something does not mean you believe that something doesn't exist. Disbelief requires no faith; belief requires faith. I lack belief in the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't mean I believe the Giant Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- one is faith-based (belief with out evidence), the other is not...it is simply the non-presence of a belief. What you're telling me is that not collecting stamps is a hobby and that bald is a hairstyle. Doesn't make any sense, it's illogical. Untrue.
Breaking down the word, atheist, as you did: The "A-" prefix in English has multiple meanings -- no, absence of, without, lack of, not, etc. (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838). We get "no belief," "absence of belief," etc.
A lack of belief in something is not faith-based. I lack belief in Allah; again, that doesn't immediately imply I believe Allah doesn't exist. I frankly don't care if Allah exists, my belief in Allah is absent.
On a side note, there's really no point in generalizing atheists. The ONLY true thing you can generalize about atheists is that they lack a belief in one or more gods. There is no dogma as there is in religion, there are no central themes, there is no way to group large numbers of atheists together...beyond that one single point.
-
Wow, I've never seen one person throw around the word "faith" so much in a thread. And incorrectly at that!
Since when does an atheist claim an absolutes, yet, here, you make an absolute declaration! What is this based upon?
I simply said a firm WRONG because liljp617 had already addressed your claim quite nicely. There was no sense in repeating exactly what he said. But because you insist: you are wrong because the vast majority of atheists are smart enough to know that no one can ever 100% disprove the existence of something that is invisible. Most atheists propose that it is extremely unlikely for a god to exist, but you sometimes might catch them making assertions that they KNOW there is not a god, and that is only because based on the evidence against defined gods, the possibility of them existing is so miniscule that it is appropriate to round it down to zero.
I do not know where you came up with the idea "you can't have a belief without evidence." People believe in many things without evidence!
I was saying that your use of the term faith against atheists was incorrect. The main definition of faith is belief without evidence; intelligent atheists don't have "faith" that a god probably doesn't exist, they've looked at the EVIDENCE which confirms a god probably doesn't exist. The exact opposite of faith!
And yes, "people" believe in many things without evidence (scientists don't!). This doesn't make the things lay people believe true, however. Logic always trumps emotions, and usually the things people are believing without good evidence are based on emotions (prime example: god).
"belief without evidence" is only one definition of faith, btw.
It is the main and most important one.
This so called "FACT that there is no tangible evidence for any god" is certainly a statement about something "believed" to be true by you based upon your own "fact" criteria.
It's true! Pretty much every argument for god that believers give can be obliterated by science, reason, logic. My "fact criteria" is based off of what has been proven, demonstrated, observed by professionals who devote their LIVES to discovering what is true (also logic, which can only be obtained by being intelligent). And that's not an appeal to authority, that's an appeal to what WORKS.
A believer's "fact criteria", on the other hand, is almost entirely based on appeals to emotion. Something good happens in their life and rather than realizing that it came about it in a completely natural way, attribute it to a god they already want to believe in. A believer doesn't typically investigate, question, or analyze the dogmatic, unrealistic claims of their religion and if they do, they typically stick to like-minded pseudo-sources rather than creditable, objective ones.
placing your trust in your knowledge base, which cannot even hold 1% of the known knowledge in the State you live in, let alone the universe. Therefore, your conviction can only be based upon faith - period!
I've heard a believer try to pull this "fast one" before on The Atheist Experience. You realize that the person making the claim that there is a god is the one who is in the position to prove it (burden of proof)? Besides that, all we can do is live our lives based on our current pool of knowledge. It doesn't serve any point believing in something that has yet to be proven; a person can really waste their life clinging to maybes, what-ifs, and unknowable possibilities.
So, there IS hard evidence against specific defined gods like the god of the Bible? Interesting philosophy, but it is really nothing more than a philosophical statement.
YES. How is it philosophical to realize that the Bible has multiple contradictions, conflicts with science, and also makes Yahweh out to be completely barbaric while also saying that he is all-loving? How is it philosophical to study the history of your religion and realize the only reason it was successful is because your lot SLAUGHTERED AND TORTURED anyone who didn't believe? You also had books thrown out of the Bible that sounded too bat-*bleep* crazy. The only "philosophical" things are those that relate to common sense, like how does an all-loving, perfect god send people to hell for FINITE crimes to be tortured INFINITELY?
Anyone who has taken a few basic science courses in college knows how the "evolutionary theory" changes, morphs, and contradicts itself every five years.
Evolution is a fact. It happened and still happens. HOW it happens is a THEORY, still open for discussion and improvement. Anyone who has graduated beyond their few basic science courses knows that. ;)
In fact, evolutionary scientists so disagree with themselves now that some would argue that there is no such theory anymore. If you are basing your atheism foundation on the crumbling contradictions within the evolutionary scientific community, I would say it is time to get out of the house! Believe me when I say that I am not even including the creation science community in my analysis!
Again, it is completely bizarre how theists trash the science that goes against their Biblegod while at the same time taking advantage of a computer to type on, a fridge to keep their food safe, a car to get them places, shots to keep them healthy...go live in a cave and stop being a hypocrite if you really trust your sky daddy more than science!
And no, evolution is not the main reason I personally don't believe in Jesus. Do you seriously think there is better evidence for your 6,000-year-old Earth?
One thing that studies have proven is this: all five senses can be deceived - that makes it quite unbelievable that one would place one's faith in them!
And god gave you your five senses, right? What does that say about him? lol Your senses can be deceived, but they can also give you a workable enough picture of reality.
I notice you make this claim about everyone who disagrees with you.
I notice you only have ~30 posts under your belt, so can I seriously believe you've been stalking all of my posts? For the record, I've only consistently called marieelissa a troll because she is one (I can get at least 10 people on this forum to back me up on this one). You haven't been around long enough to see yet. All I was saying is you were being purposefully provoking (like a troll) in your statement. I certainly don't make such a claim just because a person disagrees.
Some of the most intelligent minds in America have declared atheism a religion
Appeal to authority. We don't have a book of dogma, we don't have weekly religious services, we don't demand tithes or a tax-exempt status...come on now.
Do you really want to place your faith in your own reasoning abilities?
This is such a laughable question. It requires the very reasoning you speak of to form such a question!
That's all anyone can do, and you do it too. You can only attempt to grow in knowledge to better your reasoning abilities.
I do not believe for a moment that everything an atheist believes is based upon what is "TESTABLE and TRUE."
Give me some examples of things an atheist could believe that aren't then.
They choose only those evidences that support their presuppositions, so even if one were to present other evidence, it wouldn't matter - their faith is too strong in their presuppositions to consider any alternatives!
Here's your favorite again: WRONG. The vast majority of us would not be so stupid as to deny real evidence for god if it were presented to us. The problem is, theists have failed time and again to do this. We wouldn't be happy if you could prove it's your Biblegod that is the real one (because he's an evil pr*ck), but we couldn't say we don't believe in him. On the contrary, it is most theists who are sticking their fingers in their ears, shielding their eyes, and making excuses for real evidence that conflicts with their notion of god.
Nice deflection, however, the fact of the matter is that atheists do not determine when or how they are going to die, so they are under an illusion that they are in charge of their own destiny. In fact, even if they write out their ten year plan, they will discover that all the details of the plan will not be what they thought they would be at all in 99% of the cases.
Hmm, well I certainly don't think of the day I die as my destiny. Life is about LIFE, not death. The journey is what's really important, not the fact that one day it will end -- you are greatly in control of how happy your life is. I guess I'm weird in that I don't come up with any 5/10/20 year plans; I have some basic things that I want to accomplish, but I don't put a timeline to them and I know I will be successful because I already have experience being successful, and that is my personality to actually get things done (what I just described does not apply for a lot of people).
And people CAN have some control over their deaths: if you don't want to die early, it's better if you don't binge-drink, weigh 500 pounds, or walk around the bad part of town late at night.
Not everyone believes in situation ethics - sorry!
And those who go against the good of the whole by murdering, stealing, or raping get thrown in prison.
Yes, I have ignored countless commandments.
And I bet I can guess why...it's because you value being right with society over what god's word commands you to do. Also you inherently know stoning disobedient children or non-virgin women to death is wrong; you disagree with your god's morals, you just don't want to admit it. Gee, I guess that makes you "self-righteous"!
-
I've lived with an atheist with an IQ of over 160 for 18 years...he is my step-dad.
Cool, maybe you should take some cues from him. :thumbsup: There are statistics on the more intelligent/educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in god. Have you talked to him about it?
Yes I have...he is really smart and knows his stuff. My mom is a believer so I kinda am left on my own to decide for myself maybe that's why most of the time I am agnostic because I just can't tell if God is there or not.
I highly doubt I will get a reply to this, but you are once again contradicting yourself. You said awhile ago, in a thread on marriage, that your parents were still together. You also informed me, about a week ago, that you knew much more about the Bible than I did because your dad is a PREACHER. Now you say you have lived with a stepdad for 18 years and he is an atheist. What exactly is the truth and how can you expect us NOT to call you out on this stuff?! It is as if you post whatever is convenient at the time/makes you look like you know something, but you never remember what you have said previously. I don't trust a word that comes out of you anymore unless it is someone else's words you have copied and put down here.
-
:angel12: I gotta hand it to the atheists where faith is concerned, God knows it takes ALOT more faith to believe there is no God than it takes faith to know there is.
Yes, atheists do have a lot of faith. They place a great deal of faith in their own reasoning abilities - to the point that they create their own criteria for what determines real evidence. So, if anyone challenges their parameters, then they can dismiss it as unreasonable. Thus, maintaining their belief system inspite of any evidence to the contrary.
-
err "disbelief" and and "lack of belief" mean the same thing (almost every definition you listed used the phrase lack of or the word disbelief). Disbelief in something does not mean you believe that something doesn't exist. Disbelief requires no faith; belief requires faith. I lack belief in the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't mean I believe the Giant Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- one is faith-based (belief with out evidence), the other is not...it is simply the non-presence of a belief. What you're telling me is that not collecting stamps is a hobby and that bald is a hairstyle. Doesn't make any sense, it's illogical. Untrue.
Atheism claims that their creed is "simply the non-presence of a belief," however, it is only a "non-presence of a belief" in a higher power. The result is that atheism has created its own faith - fiath in reason, faith in self, faith in the perimeters of their own criteria. They trust these things implicitly, which makes it a very fickle sort of faith. Afterall, there isn't an atheist out there that knows more than 1 percent of any form of information of the planet, yet, declares there is no God. This is quite arrogant indeed, IMHO. Because of this arrogance, most will not objectively look at any evidence that contends against this faith.
Breaking down the word, atheist, as you did: The "A-" prefix in English has multiple meanings -- no, absence of, without, lack of, not, etc. (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838). We get "no belief," "absence of belief," etc.
Yes, it may have more than one meaning. However, I was using the usus generalis principle of hermeneutics.
A lack of belief in something is not faith-based. I lack belief in Allah; again, that doesn't immediately imply I believe Allah doesn't exist. I frankly don't care if Allah exists, my belief in Allah is absent.
On a side note, there's really no point in generalizing atheists. The ONLY true thing you can generalize about atheists is that they lack a belief in one or more gods. There is no dogma as there is in religion, there are no central themes, there is no way to group large numbers of atheists together...beyond that one single point.
IThe general position of "absence of a faith" in God is a statement of faith. To deny that fact is outside of normative communication. Those who BELIEVE that they have No-present belief" in a diety came through trusting their own conclusions. It is impossible to come to this understanding without trusting that ones own understanding is correct - that is faith!
-
The "statistics" referred to are from where exactly?...there are MANY, MANY, MANY Believers that not only have college educations and many degrees....some have started well known colleges, hospitals, a multitude of charities, well known businesses & more.
Ask and you shall receive:
"In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.
Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.
Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”
"Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."
"In the US, according to raw data from the 2004 General Social Survey, those with graduate degrees were the least likely to believe in the afterlife or the Bible as the word of God, suggesting a link between religious belief and lower educational attainment."
~ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c
"93% of members of the American National Academy of Science don't believe in God. Nature Magazine's latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
~ Leading scientists still reject God Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
"It is true that studies have repeatedly shown a correlation between atheism and education levels. The more education a person receives — especially in the sciences — the less religious they become and the less likely they are to remain theists. The exact nature of the relationship between atheism and education is a matter of dispute, but the existence of some sort connection is clear and not really debated.
It is also true that higher education levels generally correspond with better income — the more education a person has, the more they will earn over their lifetime. The connection between education and income is even less controversial than that between education and atheism, but it suggests that in America, atheists tend to be a bit better educated and probably tend to make more money that the average. Usually, it is assumed that people with more education and money are privileged, not the victims of bigotry and discrimination." ~about.com
Note that no one is saying ALL atheists are intelligent. Note that no one is saying ALL theists are stupid. Certainly there are many brilliant believers that can "compartmentalize" their god beliefs and not allow them really to affect their jobs or common sense. And I thank them for that. My beef is with the people who cannot compartmentalize.
-
The "statistics" referred to are from where exactly?...there are MANY, MANY, MANY Believers that not only have college educations and many degrees....some have started well known colleges, hospitals, a multitude of charities, well known businesses & more.
Ask and you shall receive:
"In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.
Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.
Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all the higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”
"Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."
"In the US, according to raw data from the 2004 General Social Survey, those with graduate degrees were the least likely to believe in the afterlife or the Bible as the word of God, suggesting a link between religious belief and lower educational attainment."
~ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4TFV93D-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=db2ee09bae0195cc1ecbd026da77245c
"93% of members of the American National Academy of Science don't believe in God. Nature Magazine's latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total. The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
~ Leading scientists still reject God Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
"It is true that studies have repeatedly shown a correlation between atheism and education levels. The more education a person receives — especially in the sciences — the less religious they become and the less likely they are to remain theists. The exact nature of the relationship between atheism and education is a matter of dispute, but the existence of some sort connection is clear and not really debated.
It is also true that higher education levels generally correspond with better income — the more education a person has, the more they will earn over their lifetime. The connection between education and income is even less controversial than that between education and atheism, but it suggests that in America, atheists tend to be a bit better educated and probably tend to make more money that the average. Usually, it is assumed that people with more education and money are privileged, not the victims of bigotry and discrimination." ~about.com
Note that no one is saying ALL atheists are intelligent. Note that no one is saying ALL theists are stupid. Certainly there are many brilliant believers that can "compartmentalize" their god beliefs and not allow them really to affect their jobs or common sense. And I thank them for that. My beef is with the people who cannot compartmentalize.
This is rather humoorous. Why? Well, anyone who has went to college and has studied the basis of the IQ test knows that it is a test on specific knowledge. It does not test intelligence. What it does say is that the moreknowledge one accumulates, the more one is likely to deceive himself into believing that he/she is more intelligent. Knowledge is knowledge - there is no reliable test on this planet that demonstrates true intelligence!
-
Quote from above: Cool, maybe you should take some cues from him. There are statistics on the more intelligent/educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in god. Have you talked to him about it? The "statistics" referred to are from where exactly? There are so-called "statistics" posted by unreliable sources I've seen on the internet, they can't seem to give a credible source for these statistics of theirs so that's why I ask. I haven't seen a credible source post statistics for that yet as there are MANY, MANY, MANY Believers that not only have college educations and many degrees....some have started well known colleges, hospitals, a multitude of charities, well known businesses & more.
Hi Sheryl
You should know that the IQ test does not measure intelligence. It actually measures memory more than intelligence. It is built upon how much one knows about various subjects. Hence, a person who comes from a lower educated school district may appear to have a low IQ, but it may be only because he wasn't taught well. The IQ test is one of the most popular urban myths out there!
-
This is rather humoorous. Why? Well, anyone who has went to college and has studied the basis of the IQ test knows that it is a test on specific knowledge. It does not test intelligence. What it does say is that the moreknowledge one accumulates, the more one is likely to deceive himself into believing that he/she is more intelligent. Knowledge is knowledge - there is no reliable test on this planet that demonstrates true intelligence!
You can think it's humorous, all I was trying to say is there are plenty of studies out there that are making this claim. Yes I am aware that an IQ test isn't something that's black-and-white...there are some people who are exceptions, but let's face it; if you didn't pay attention in school and don't have a modest idea of how the world really works, you're more likely to believe in fairytales. If you were never taught how to CRITICALLY THINK (which a lot of our education system does a horrible job of teaching), it's not even going to occur to you to doubt or question the fantastical claims of your feel-good religion.
I find it funny you start off by saying "anyone who went to college" and then end by bashing knowledge. You contradict yourself. And it is certainly not deception that the more knowledge one accumulates, the more likely they are to be intelligent. More knowledge can only be a good thing, and for you to say otherwise is quite appalling. Criticizing the pursuit of learning and discovery is something a fundamental nut job does -- "don't think - it's from THE DEVIL!!!"
You seem likely a smart guy, can I ask you what are your honest reasons (i.e. afraid of death) for needing to believe in a god so badly?
-
Hosea 4:6 (King James Version)
6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...
Hosea 4:6 (The Message)
4-10 "But don't look for someone to blame.
No finger pointing!
You, priest, are the one in the dock.
You stumble around in broad daylight,
And then the prophets take over and stumble all night.
Your mother is as bad as you.
My people are ruined
because they don't know what's right or true.
Because you've turned your back on knowledge,
I've turned my back on you priests.
Because you refuse to recognize the revelation of God,
I'm no longer recognizing your children.
the bible doesn't teach not to think for yourself
Proverbs 22:12 (The Message)
12 God guards knowledge with a passion,
but he'll have nothing to do with deception.
-
You can think it's humorous, all I was trying to say is there are plenty of studies out there that are making this claim. Yes I am aware that an IQ test isn't something that's black-and-white...there are some people who are exceptions, but let's face it; if you didn't pay attention in school and don't have a modest idea of how the world really works, you're more likely to believe in fairytales. If you were never taught how to CRITICALLY THINK (which a lot of our education system does a horrible job of teaching), it's not even going to occur to you to doubt or question the fantastical claims of your feel-good religion.
1. The American education system is a joke in many ways. You are right. It doesn't teach people to think - hence, evolution! None the less, the european model, where I have begun my Ph.D studies is much more research, and thinking oriented.
2. Atheism is a feel good religion too. In fact, it is because of "feelings" more than facts that atheists exist at all. You see, it feels good to do all those things that those of faith say are wrong. I remember asking one atheist in a debate this question: "I said if I could proof to you without a shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence that God exists, would you follow Him?" He told me "absolutely not!" That answer is so revealing as to the real motives of most atheists. In fact, I have found very few true empirical atheists. Most are "if it feels good, lets do it, because we embrace no accountability for our actions!"
I find it funny you start off by saying "anyone who went to college" and then end by bashing knowledge.
I don't bash true knowledge. I bash the brain washing system of American education, in particular.
You contradict yourself.
Actually, your statement qualifies as a false disjunctions: an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle. In other words, you made a logical fallacy by assuming that I look at things in a false either/or worldview.
And it is certainly not deception that the more knowledge one accumulates, the more likely they are to be intelligent. More knowledge can only be a good thing, and for you to say otherwise is quite appalling. Criticizing the pursuit of learning and discovery is something a fundamental nut job does -- "don't think - it's from THE DEVIL!!!"
Being brainwashed isn't necessarily a good accumulation of knowledge. I remember a friend of mine who went before a board for his final disseration to receive his Doctorate in Philosophy. Behind the scenes they bacially told him that if he didn't present the phlosophy of the staff, he would not receive his doctorate. He prsented his thesis anyway (it was conservate, and they were liberal), and they failed him. However, he had kept all the notes, and conversations along the way. He sued the university and won. He now has a Ph.D, but he had to fight for it because of the pressure to believe what certain professors wanted him to believe.
I had an experience similar when I was receiving my Masters. I publically disagreed with my professor, so he downgraded my midterm test to the lowest grade I had ever received in my life. I apologized to him personally in his office. He then created an assignement for me so I could get an A out of the class. These kind of things go on all the time! The only point I am making is that education, in and of itself, does not mean one is smart or educated! It may mean they have followed popular opinion!
[qutoe]You seem likely a smart guy, can I ask you what are your honest reasons (i.e. afraid of death) for needing to believe in a god so badly?
[/quote]
Actually, I had a specific encounter with God. I did not begin to follow Him based upon a fear or knowledge. My encounter was so powerful that unless I had experienced myself, I would have never have believed it. I suppose the closet oBiblical example is apostle Paul. One day he was killing Christians. The next day he was a believer!
-
rwdeese---I enjoy your posts!! :thumbsup:
ditto :D
-
In fact, it is because of "feelings" more than facts that atheists exist at all. You see, it feels good to do all those things that those of faith say are wrong.
Don't include the word fact in front of something that is your opinion. Most atheists used to be believers, and most left after they woke up and started using their brains, NOT because they wanted to run around and "sin". The problem with your god's morals is that they label so many things as "bad" that are entirely victimless crimes. There's no rationale behind it, it's just wrong because your god says it's wrong. This is a problem when you consider something like homosexuality, which isn't a choice and there are no natural/logical arguments against it outside of god, and yet your group hates on and even murders these people just because there are some lines in some Bronze Age book that don't approve of it. How moral is THAT??
I remember asking one atheist in a debate this question: "I said if I could proof to you without a shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence that God exists, would you follow Him?" He told me "absolutely not!" That answer is so revealing as to the real motives of most atheists.
You asked the wrong question. Would we believe in him? YES. Would we worship him? Not if he's the evil character depicted in the Bible or Koran!! And there you have "our real motives" - a lot of us would rather burn in hell than kiss up to that murdering, unjust tyrant. Just like someone might rather commit suicide than spend their life as a slave. Have you read the whole Bible??
The only point I am making is that education, in and of itself, does not mean one is smart or educated!
And I agree! There are plenty of atheists who didn't go to college/finish college who are highly intelligent. This is because they're still capable of learning, researching, analyzing things on their own rather than being forced to do so at college. Certainly those who find themselves obtaining a broader knowledge of biology, physics, cosmology can have it go in one ear and out the other at college...college is just one route to intelligence for those who may not have stumbled across certain key bits of information on their own.
Actually, I had a specific encounter with God. I did not begin to follow Him based upon a fear or knowledge.
Well, you didn't really answer the question...what specific needs does a god belief satisfy in your life? What would it mean to you if you were wrong and it was really just all in your head? Have you ever dared to examine the other side (that religion is a man-made comfort for the masses?).
-
RW: In fact, it is because of "feelings" more than facts that atheist exist at all. You see, it feels good to do all those things that those of faith say are wrong.
Don't include the word fact in front of something that is your opinion
Good point! I will give you that one.
Most atheists used to be believers, and most left after they woke up and started using their brains
I do not know if one can prove this as well. There are certainly a number of atheists that were believers, this is true. My personal experience is that those I have encountered chose not to believe, not based upon any empirical evidence (for most haven't delved into any Christian apologetics - that is what an intellectual honest person would have done before making that decision - they have merely concluded [some out of bitterness toward God - at least the ones I have met], and others because they desired to have the "freedom" to do what they felt restraint from doing before).
NOT because they wanted to run around and "sin".
I have yet to meet any atheist who actually looked empirically at the evidences for Christianity, and God, and the arguments against those evidences, and then made a decision based upon this research. In fact, I have found just the opposite. Atheists decide to be atheists then they go and research the arguments against God to justify their emotive decisions. I am not saying all atheists are like this... I am merely saying that the ones I have personally spoken to are like this!
The problem with your god's morals is that they label so many things as "bad" that are entirely victimless crimes
The problem with you judging His definitions is that it makes you the God. You obviously know better, and have created your own set of morals. How do you know what you have created is right or wrong? Do you toss a coin?
There's no rationale behind it, it's just wrong because your god says it's wrong.
Is this really a true statement, or is it a statement that demonstrates ignorance of the facts.
This is a problem when you consider something like homosexuality, which isn't a choice and there are no natural/logical arguments against it outside of god, and yet your group hates on and even murders these people just because there are some lines in some Bronze Age book that don't approve of it. How moral is THAT??
First of all it should be clearly noted that there isn't ANY evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a choice. This is your personal opinion, but is not based upon solid research!
Second, there are a truckload of natural arguments against it outside of God. The diseases that are passed merely by the germ cesspools created through rectal sex, fecal ingestion, and golden showers places people at unnecessary medical risk. Not only does this unnatural act help to spread HIV, it also helps to spread hepatitis B, syphilis, and a host of other blood-borne diseases. 70% to 78% (depending upon which study you read) of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion of intestinal parasites, such as worms, flukes, and nasty amebas, have been reported as high as 59% with homosexuals. This doesn't even include those who also contracted hepatitis A and B. Do you know that the median death for gays is 39 years of age. The median death of married men is 75. Since God created man, He knows what keeps them healthy. The homosexual lifestyle is actually a "death style!" Those who really care for people will do everything in their power to prevent these people from harming each other. Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. True love will encourage people to avoid this destructive way of life.
Third, there may be those who "hate" homosexuals who claim to be Christian, but I for one, love them like anyone else. I see their lifestyle as wrong as I would see someone wrong who commits adultery.
God's law against this activity is based upon His knowledge of His creation. He knew how destructive it is to each on who practices it. The death penalty under the Old Covenant was actually an act of mercy. The suffering and passing of misery that comes from the homosexual lifestyle hurts more people than the death of one individual.
RW: I remember asking one atheist in a debate this question: "I said if I could proof to you without a shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence that God exists, would you follow Him?" He told me "absolutely not!" That answer is so revealing as to the real motives of most atheists.
You asked the wrong question. Would we believe in him? YES. Would we worship him? Not if he's the evil character depicted in the Bible or Koran!!
All this really suggests is that you have defined your morals and actually believe that your definitions of morality are the correct ones. The natural result of this is placing your faith in your own reason - or self, to be more exact! Just because you disagree with what is written in the Bible does not make it a higher morality.
And there you have "our real motives" - a lot of us would rather burn in hell than kiss up to that murdering, unjust tyrant. Just like someone might rather commit suicide than spend their life as a slave. Have you read the whole Bible??
So, if I understand your motives, it boils down to creating your own morality, and rebelling against the morality of another. Why? Because "our" morality is the correct one! How do you know? Because "we" have defined it and declared it so. Therefore, you have placed your faith in your own reason, or self. In essence then, you have become your own God!
I can't help but notice how you have defined what the God of the Bible did as murder or injustice. Creating your own morality - this is what I am speaking of. Atheists are atheists in order to create their own morality. In this case, it is a more objective morality as opposed to a subjective morality. None the less, it is still one of the foundational reasons for atheism!
Yes, I have read the entire Bible many times.
RW: The only point I am making is that education, in and of itself, does not mean one is smart or educated!
And I agree! There are plenty of atheists who didn't go to college/finish college who are highly intelligent. This is because they're still capable of learning, researching, analyzing things on their own rather than being forced to do so at college. Certainly those who find themselves obtaining a broader knowledge of biology, physics, cosmology can have it go in one ear and out the other at college...college is just one route to intelligence for those who may not have stumbled across certain key bits of information on their own.
I do not agree that college is a route to acquire intelligence, but one can certainly receive a lot of knowledge - even if some of it is not objective knowledge, but selective knowledge.
RW: Actually, I had a specific encounter with God. I did not begin to follow Him based upon a fear or knowledge.
Well, you didn't really answer the question...what specific needs does a god belief satisfy in your life?
I was asked point blank if I wanted to know God. So, my need was centered on a need for relationship. I was then challenged. If I really desired to enter into a vital relationship with God I needed to repent of my sins. When I did, bam - it was as if I entered into the throne room of God. From that point on He began to talk to me, direct me, give me visions, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc... I found that for the first time in my life I had an unquenchable desire to read the Bible.
What would it mean to you if you were wrong and it was really just all in your head?
To deny the existence of God now would be to deny my own existence. It would be like denying the experience the day the twin towers collapsed. You must understand - I am not a convert because of information, or fear, or escapism - I met God, and I still meet Him in profound ways. He still talks to me. He still performs miracles. The Bible is lived out in my life. I experience many of the things the Bible authors write about.
Have you ever dared to examine the other side (that religion is a man-made comfort for the masses?)
The fact of the matter is that most religions are man-made. From my perspective, there are only two religions in the world. One is man centered, and the other is God centered. One is made up by man (like atheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, etc), the other is God centered - Christianity!
-
The problem with you judging His definitions is that it makes you the God. You obviously know better, and have created your own set of morals. How do you know what you have created is right or wrong? Do you toss a coin?
I'm sure she adheres to the same rational laws and rules you do. The same ones that change throughout time depending on the circumstances. Yours just have some hollow feel good sayings and some wacky adventure stories pretending to be some guide to life.
The diseases that are passed merely by the germ cesspools created through rectal sex, fecal ingestion, and golden showers places people at unnecessary medical risk.
Heteros do this stuff too though...don't ask me how I know this. You're leaving out any statistic on the heteros who do these things. And if you're arguing against the spread of diseased and damaged parts, lesbianism is the way to go.
Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. True love will encourage people to avoid this destructive way of life.
They're troubled because of people with your mindset. Just like you, they can't help who you fall in love with. You are the antagonistic obstacle.
Since God created man, He knows what keeps them healthy.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/washingtonnews/EzekielBread.htm OM NOM NOM
"I said if I could proof to you without a shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence that God exists, would you follow Him?" He told me "absolutely not!" That answer is so revealing as to the real motives of most atheists.
That is not the real motives of most atheists and you are naive for believing this. If they said 'absolutely not', it's probably because they don't want to follow the schizophrenic genocidal child-killing pain-driving close-minded god that you do. Hell! I know I wouldn't!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
The fact of the matter is that most religions are man-made. From my perspective, there are only two religions in the world. One is man centered, and the other is God centered. One is made up by man (like atheism, Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, etc), the other is God centered - Christianity!
Your perspective seems extremely naive to others. Sorry to burst your bubble. It's completely obvious that christianity is a man-made religion because the basis is just as wacky (if not more) as all the other ones you don't believe in.
(http://migration.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/christianity.jpg)
And atheism is not a religion. Much like if you have a hobby of collecting stamps, and your friend does not collect stamps, it does not mean he has a hobby of not collecting stamps. Atheists don't subscribe to the supernatural or rituals found in any religion.
I've skipped around your post because I'm too tired to write more. I'm just going to end with you need to hear the other sides of issues explained better-- you have some massive blinders on and it's obvious you are extremely uneducated with everything but your own beliefs.
-
The basic claim of an atheist is typically, "I lack the belief in a god(s), because there is no evidence yet that justifies such a belief."
Your logic is flawed from the first sentence. A very small percentage of atheists state there absolutely is not and cannot be a god. The overwhelming majority of atheists are agnostic atheists -- they recognize we don't have the capability to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of deities, but they personally lack the belief in said deities (worth noting that lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist; you could be an atheist even if it was 100% absolutely true there was a god).
As for "moral accountability," all one has to do is take a look at the US prison system to see how silly it is to make a correlation between good behavior and religious belief (the overwhelming majority of prison inmates in the US proclaim themselves to be religious). Or you could look at the dozens upon dozens of studies that have attempted to discover a correlation between morality and religious belief -- studies ranging from teen pregnancy, divorce, abortions, young offenders, drug use, you name it -- nope, none come back showing such a correlation (some even show a negative correlation between the two). There is no correlation between religion and good behavior.
Your argument rests on a relatively unused definition of atheism, as well as on the notion that religious people are more moral than nonreligious people. One is a shaky foundation to rest logic upon, and the other is blatantly false.
This is exactly how I feel
-
rwdeese---I enjoy your posts!! :thumbsup:
Thank you Sheryl.
-
rwdeese---I enjoy your posts!! :thumbsup:
ditto :D
Thank you Sherna
-
My personal experience is that those I have encountered chose not to believe, not based upon any empirical evidence (for most haven't delved into any Christian apologetics - that is what an intellectual honest person would have done before making that decision - they have merely concluded [some out of bitterness toward God - at least the ones I have met]
Well that's unfortunate that you are living in a particular area where the only atheists you encounter don't have very solid reasons for not believing. That shouldn't be your one and final impression of non-theists though, because your small group certainly does not represent us on the whole. Good thing we have the Internet to expose you to a much wider pool of freethinkers.
I, for one, am an example of an exception to your impression. I wasn't raised religiously and couldn't see any evidence for this Jesus character some spoke of in my everyday life, therefore I labeled myself an atheist before I was a Christian. Because I knew my only reason for not believing in god was a lack of evidence in my daily routine (a very good and obvious reason, but not quite enough definitive ammo), I decided to give god a try in the same nonchalant manner one might decide to take a new route home from work. I got the warm, gooey, prideful feeling after I did this and soon after had those trippin' hallucinations. I also found a FUN church which sucked me in quite nicely. Their sermons were MODERN and seemed to make so much sense, dude!
I have yet to meet any atheist who actually looked empirically at the evidences for Christianity, and God, and the arguments against those evidences, and then made a decision based upon this research. In fact, I have found just the opposite. Atheists decide to be atheists then they go and research the arguments against God to justify their emotive decisions.
Whilst I was in the fold, I was a devoted little believer! I hit up all of the major fundie websites for scientific "proof" of god, witnessed to others, and even started a book, "There IS a God: Ruminations of a Former Atheist". :o I was very shocked the day I confirmed it was all a sham because I had sincerely believed in the Christian god just as much as you do.
You obviously know better, and have created your own set of morals. How do you know what you have created is right or wrong? Do you toss a coin?
It's not just me who knows better. Are you to say that humanity at large is wrong for ending slavery, for example? Because your god sure loves it. Christianity had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the days that ya'll would TORTURE people to get them to convert. I have no doubt that if your religion could, it would try to get atheists thrown in prison. Good thing we have a government that is SECULAR and does not stand for that bullsh*t.
Nothing is absolutely "right" or "wrong", but if the goal is what's most ideal for the health and happiness of the most people, we can have certain standards. I would rather not get killed and you would rather not get killed, so let's agree not to kill each other, k? That's how society freaking works. We would collapse and our species wouldn't survive very long if everyone was just running around raping, murdering, and pillaging. That's not god, that's COMMON SENSE.
First of all it should be clearly noted that there isn't ANY evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a choice.
Uh, did you mean to say NOT a choice?
The diseases that are passed merely by the germ cesspools created through rectal sex, fecal ingestion, and golden showers places people at unnecessary medical risk.
And I don't deny that, however, these things are not exclusive to homosexuals as I've seen plenty a Christian source that speak fondly of *bleep* sex/other kinky sex acts.
70% to 78% (depending upon which study you read) of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion of intestinal parasites, such as worms, flukes, and nasty amebas, have been reported as high as 59% with homosexuals. This doesn't even include those who also contracted hepatitis A and B.
This is more of an issue of a person not being smart about WHO they have sex with and HOW they go about it. If two dudes are STD-free, in a committed relationship, and are careful with their hygiene, clean up, protection, and/or speed of thrusting, it can be perfectly healthy and fine, just like it is perfectly healthy and fine for heteros to go about it in this way if such an act is appealing to them.
Do you know that the median death for gays is 39 years of age.
That is a flat-out lie! In order for that phony statistic to be true, "one would have to assume wildly pessimistically, given current incidence data, that half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46. Looked at another way, if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early average age (11-years-old, actually)." ~ http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26857.html
The death penalty under the Old Covenant was actually an act of mercy.
Are the Old Testament gays not burning in hell right now? You call that "mercy"?!
Just because you disagree with what is written in the Bible does not make it a higher morality.
Of course it does if we're going off of the goal of what's best for the most people.
Of course it doesn't when I think murdering people for bogus reasons is wrong and your god doesn't. Of course it doesn't when I think a law like forcing a woman to marry her rapist is sick and cruel and your god commands it. Of course it doesn't when life is nothing but a cosmic joke/test and your god is far worse than all of the infamous dictators combined!
Yes, I have read the entire Bible many times.
You've made peace with the fact that Biblegod is a tyrannical monster then?
To deny the existence of God now would be to deny my own existence.
And for me to believe your Biblegod is real would be like believing the sky is purple, when it is clearly blue. The world looks and operates exactly like it should if there are no gods.
The Bible is lived out in my life. I experience many of the things the Bible authors write about.
Cool, so have you seen water turned into wine? Have you seen someone walk on water? Have you seen five loaves of bread and two fishes feed 5,000 people? Have you seen someone raised from the dead or cured from a blindness they were born with? No? Darn.
-
2. Atheism is a feel good religion too.
You just can't get past this can you lol? Again, what you're saying is NOT collecting stamps is a hobby and baldness is a hairstyle.
Define religion please.
Here's a relatively decent definition, feel free to elaborate on it if you have a more complete definition:
Religion (from Latin religio, "reverence for the gods", "piety", possibly related to religare, "to bind"[1]) is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
So let's go down the list shall we...
Atheism:
Reverence for god(s) -- Nope, obvious
Belief in and worship of a god(s) -- Nope, precisely the lack there of
Explains the existence of and gives meaning to the universe -- Nope, atheism makes no claims on such subjects, because atheism entails and requires no beliefs; it requires nothing more than the lack of belief in deities.
Devotional and ritual observances -- Nope, I'm unaware of any such observances that are done "in the name of atheism" or "for atheism;" I certainly don't take part in anything "in the name of atheism" and I've been around my fair share of atheists who I don't recall participating either
Moral code -- Nope, atheism is not a moral code. You'll find many atheists claim themselves to be secular humanists...that's a moral code. Atheism? Not at all, it was never meant to be.
We could continue with some other generic aspects...
Dogma -- Nope, the only requirement to be an atheist is that you lack belief in deities. If the lack of belief in something is dogma, we have some issues to deal with.
Faith -- Nope, faith is only required when an individual makes a positive claim about some entity or occurrence without evidence to back the claim; atheism makes no positive claims about any entity or occurrence, an atheist claims he/she lacks belief in deities; the belief is non-present
Often includes some sacred narrative, be it written or oral -- Obvious nope, there is no book of atheism; no, The God Delusion is not a "book of atheism"
Focuses on an "ultimate truth" -- Nope, you cannot begin to generalize what all atheists believe on the ultimate truth of the universe, because atheism entails no beliefs
This is boring now. There's really no point in discussing anything with you until you can grasp the ridiculously easy point that atheism is purely the absence of religious belief in regards to deities. The absence of belief cannot be belief. The absence of belief requires no faith, it is not a belief.
-
Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him.
Wow-She can't talk right!!!! :bs:
-
Also the whole since there were dinosaurs proves there is no God is wrong because God didn't make humans first. He would of had to wipe out his creation of dinosaurs in order to make Adam because they would of ate him.
Wow-She can't talk right!!!! :bs:
Complete sentences are a must for communication, marieelissa! You should try it sometime! It's fun!!!! :thumbsup: :wave:
-
Complete sentences are a must for communication, marieelissa! You should try it sometime! It's fun!!!! :thumbsup: :wave:
mmm hmmm like you're so perfect. Learn to use the quote button because it is a must for communication also.
Hey, just as long as you see my words, It doesn't matter how they get there!
By the way-HOW OLD ARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!! :dontknow: :dontknow:
-
Good video with pretty pictures about FAITH, since the word has been abused so much in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/user/FFreeThinker#p/u/175/VWGbmNzb7fE
-
i'm very retarded and proud of it! LOL :heart:
-
i'm very retarded and proud of it! LOL :heart:
Yeah I agree it's not the nicest word for the maker of the vid to use...however if you hear it out, you see where he's coming from. P.S. I don't think all Christians are retarded. :thumbsup:
-
well, i'm glad you don't think we are all retarded. and i tried to watch the video objectively, i can see where the speaker is coming from.
i still think my car is blue though ;) ;D
-
i tried to watch the video objectively, i can see where the speaker is coming from.
Thanks for giving it a fair chance. :) That's all I ask!
-
RW: My personal experience is that those I have encountered chose not to believe, not based upon any empirical evidence (for most haven't delved into any Christian apologetics - that is what an intellectual honest person would have done before making that decision - they have merely concluded [some out of bitterness toward God - at least the ones I have met]
Well that's unfortunate that you are living in a particular area where the only atheists you encounter don't have very solid reasons for not believing. That shouldn't be your one and final impression of non-theists though, because your small group certainly does not represent us on the whole. Good thing we have the Internet to expose you to a much wider pool of freethinkers.
The internet has a larger pool of people for sure. However, just for the record, I have encounter atheists that fall into these categories all across the US and Overseas as well.
[quoteI, for one, am an example of an exception to your impression. I wasn't raised religiously and couldn't see any evidence for this Jesus character some spoke of in my everyday life, therefore I labeled myself an atheist before I was a Christian. Because I knew my only reason for not believing in god was a lack of evidence in my daily routine (a very good and obvious reason, but not quite enough definitive ammo), I decided to give god a try in the same nonchalant manner one might decide to take a new route home from work. I got the warm, gooey, prideful feeling after I did this and soon after had those trippin' hallucinations. I also found a FUN church which sucked me in quite nicely. Their sermons were MODERN and seemed to make so much sense, dude![/quote]
It would be interesting to find out what kind of church it really was - modernism has redefined the Biblical church in many ways.
RW: I have yet to meet any atheist who actually looked empirically at the evidences for Christianity, and God, and the arguments against those evidences, and then made a decision based upon this research. In fact, I have found just the opposite. Atheists decide to be atheists then they go and research the arguments against God to justify their emotive decisions.
Whilst I was in the fold, I was a devoted little believer! I hit up all of the major fundie websites for scientific "proof" of god, witnessed to others, and even started a book, "There IS a God: Ruminations of a Former Atheist". I was very shocked the day I confirmed it was all a sham because I had sincerely believed in the Christian god just as much as you do.
Really!? I am waiting with baited breath for all the evidence for the "sham."
RW: You obviously know better, and have created your own set of morals. How do you know what you have created is right or wrong? Do you toss a coin?
It's not just me who knows better. Are you to say that humanity at large is wrong for ending slavery, for example?
No, I do not. Slavery is not wrong, in and of itself. American approach to slavery is wrong. Moreover, if you are not independently wealthy, you live as a slave to some degree.
Because your god sure loves it.
So, what is wrong with Biblical slavery?
Christianity had to be dragged kicking and screaming from the days that ya'll would TORTURE people to get them to convert.
There is no doubt that those who claimed Christianity has mocked their God. Is this supposed to be some kind of evidence that God doesn't exist?
I have no doubt that if your religion could, it would try to get atheists thrown in prison. Good thing we have a government that is SECULAR and does not stand for that bullsh*t.
Some of those who claim Christianity might fall into this category. Is this supposed to prove something?
Nothing is absolutely "right" or "wrong", but if the goal is what's most ideal for the health and happiness of the most people, we can have certain standards. I would rather not get killed and you would rather not get killed, so let's agree not to kill each other, k? That's how society freaking works. We would collapse and our species wouldn't survive very long if everyone was just running around raping, murdering, and pillaging. That's not god, that's COMMON SENSE.
And this proves that there is no God? Hmmmm... I hope you have some deeper criteria for your atheism?
RW: First of all it should be clearly noted that there isn't ANY evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is a choice.
Uh, did you mean to say NOT a choice?
Yes
RW: The diseases that are passed merely by the germ cesspools created through rectal sex, fecal ingestion, and golden showers places people at unnecessary medical risk.
And I don't deny that, however, these things are not exclusive to homosexuals as I've seen plenty a Christian source that speak fondly of *bleep* sex/other kinky sex acts.
This is true, but neither are justified.
RW: 70% to 78% (depending upon which study you read) of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion of intestinal parasites, such as worms, flukes, and nasty amebas, have been reported as high as 59% with homosexuals. This doesn't even include those who also contracted hepatitis A and B.
This is more of an issue of a person not being smart about WHO they have sex with and HOW they go about it. If two dudes are STD-free, in a committed relationship, and are careful with their hygiene, clean up, protection, and/or speed of thrusting, it can be perfectly healthy and fine, just like it is perfectly healthy and fine for heterosexual to go about it in this way if such an act is appealing to them.
1. Lust overwhelms solid thinking.
2. Condoms are not reliable in the studies I have seen concerning truly preventing HIV.
3. Homosexual sex is neither healthy or fine - even with one partner. I don't want to get into all the biology here, but I will bring up just a few points:
*Tearing and ripping of the *bleep* wall is very likely at some point.
*There is a high risk of older homosexuals being required to wear colostomy bags.
4. It should be noted that by their own admission in various studies, over 80% of homosexuals engage in *bleep* licking, thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. I will not even go into the health risks with even with a couple who "claim" they are faithful to one partner. Some very significant studies have revealed that one the average gays fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48; exchanged saliva with 96; full penetration with 68; ingested fecal material from 19 - no wonder over 78% acquire HIV
5. Heterosexuals that are involved with this kind of behavior are at medically at risk as well.
6. It is a strange coincidence that how so many medical problems are caused by violating simple Bible passages, don't you think?
RW: Do you know that the median death for gays is 39 years of age.
That is a flat-out lie! In order for that phony statistic to be true, "one would have to assume wildly pessimistically, given current incidence data, that half the gay male population is destined to catch the AIDS virus and die of it. The actual average age of AIDS patients at death has been about 40. For the number 43 to be the true average death age for the entire population of gay males, HIV-negative gay men would, on average, have to keel into their graves at 46. Looked at another way, if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early average age (11-years-old, actually)." ~ http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26857.html
The facts have been gathered by a very simple means. You can research it yourself. This may help you to get beyond the propaganda forum.
Compare the obituaries from all the homosexual journals (over 16) with the obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from regular newspapers are similar to the national average for longevity. However, the obituaries of homosexuals are significantly different. Oh, btw, I didn't say that they all died of HIV problems. It seems that their very lifestyle creates early death.
RW: The death penalty under the Old Covenant was actually an act of mercy.
Are the Old Testament gays not burning in hell right now? You call that "mercy"?!
Some Christians believe in eternal fire, but not all. Some Christians believe in annihilationism - I am one of those, btw. Yes, annihilation is very merciful.
RW: Just because you disagree with what is written in the Bible does not make it a higher morality.
Of course it does if we're going off of the goal of what's best for the most people.
This is a very omniscience statement. Your faith in your own analysis is profound based upon how little an average human really knows.
Of course it doesn't when I think murdering people for bogus reasons is wrong and your god doesn't.
Merely because you disagree with those reasons does not make your disagreement the correct way of looking at the situation. For example, you embrace homosexual behavior that is the direct cause of some the most horrid ways of dying on this planet, yet have the arrogance to accuse God of murder. Strange indeed!
Of course it doesn't when I think a law like forcing a woman to marry her rapist is sick and cruel and your god commands it.
This might actually have been an act of mercy. Most men in those days would not marry a person who had had sex before marriage. So, this would mean that the woman would die of starvation.
Of course it doesn't when life is nothing but a cosmic joke/test and your god is far worse than all of the infamous dictators combined!
Interesting assessment from one so omniscience!
RW: Yes, I have read the entire Bible many times.
You've made peace with the fact that Bible god is a tyrannical monster then?
I have made peace with the justice of God.
RW: To deny the existence of God now would be to deny my own existence.
And for me to believe your Bible god is real would be like believing the sky is purple, when it is clearly blue. The world looks and operates exactly like it should if there are no gods.
Just because you disagree with His justice is not a reason to not believe in God. This merely points out your heart, not His lack of existence!
RW: The Bible is lived out in my life. I experience many of the things the Bible authors write about.
Cool, so have you seen water turned into wine? Have you seen someone walk on water? Have you seen five loaves of bread and two fishes feed 5,000 people? Have you seen someone raised from the dead or cured from a blindness they were born with? No? Darn.
You act like these are the only things that were done in the Bible, and that if I do not see those
BTW. it almost appears that your "non belief" is really nothing more than someone who is bitter at God for Him doing things she disagrees with - perhaps weven personally. Talk to you soon!
-
RW,
In your listing of risky homosexual activities I find #6 to be interesting:
6. It is a strange coincidence that how so many medical problems are caused by violating simple Bible passages, don't you think?
Why do I say this? You seem to be addressing only homosexual practices here as far as the bible. For centuries, long before advanced medical sciences existed as we have today, people living then knew the basics of illness. Not eating flesh of cloven hooved animals - they knew then of the existence and correlation between pork and tapeworms, yes? Not eating the flesh of any animal found dead or torn by birds/beasts - the decaying process provides a host of parasites, yes? Not eating unclean fowl ie carrion birds, but those which eat berries are clean - carrion consume dead flesh/parasites, yes? Not eating animals that "scurry along the ground" ie order rodentia - they also eat any decaying/decayed matter, yes?
There are many other instances warning of forbidden things and I have obviously NOT cited exact passages, but surely you can see this was based upon the observation of a correlation between these things and disease, epidemics, and death.
-
I have encounter atheists that fall into these categories all across the US and Overseas as well.
Alright, well the exact opposite is true for me. I've traveled extensively overseas as well and even lived in another country for 2.5 years and the atheists I've come across have plenty of substance behind their reasons.
I will agree with you in the sense on what frustrates me about people is a lot of them are all the same. Individuality and thinking for one's self is rare; most people seem to stick to the status quo with their lives, for better or worse.
It would be interesting to find out what kind of church it really was - modernism has redefined the Biblical church in many ways.
I've been to Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Baptist, and non-denominational services.
I am waiting with baited breath for all the evidence for the "sham."
Again, it is the person who is making the claim for god's existence who has the burden of proof. One cannot disprove a negative in the case of atheism; how many times do we need to go over this? It would take entirely too much effort to come up with a comprehensive list for all of the reasons I don't believe in god that really did it justice; instead, I merely try to insert reason, intellectual challenge, and brief points within these discussions.
I can refer you to some people I agree with:
http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinkingAtheist
http://www.youtube.com/user/ZOMGitsCriss
Enjoy the "propaganda", as you call it. ;)
Slavery is not wrong, in and of itself.
The vast majority of human beings disagree. Owning another person AS PROPERTY is one of the top evils...right up there with rape and murder:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) It's cool to beat your slaves, just don't accidentally kill them!!
You are right one one thing: it is very profitable to the slave HOLDER.
Is this supposed to be some kind of evidence that God doesn't exist?
It shows we have the potential to be just as barbaric as the gods we've created.
Is this supposed to prove something?
Not every word out of my mouth is intended to "prove" something, just so you know. It's meant to get people to THINK.
1. Lust overwhelms solid thinking.
I was referring to loving, committed, mature relationships, so this shouldn't be listed as a reason.
*Tearing and ripping of the *bleep* wall is very likely at some point.
And that is a risk people take by engaging in that sex act. Not a guarantee. And not ALL gay guys have *bleep* sex, btw. As for this "unnatural" act somehow being proof for your god, there are plenty of things we do everyday thanks to modern technology that are "unnatural" and are WAY MORE DANGEROUS than butt sex!
It is a strange coincidence that how so many medical problems are caused by violating simple Bible passages, don't you think?
Again, people 2,000 years ago weren't completely stupid...I don't doubt that some of the things they wrote about seem to have some bearing today.
the obituaries of homosexuals are significantly different. Oh, btw, I didn't say that they all died of HIV problems. It seems that their very lifestyle creates early death.
If you pick and choose your sources to support a bias, sure. Are you including the hate groups who murder them or drive them to suicide in your label of "early death"?
Some Christians believe in annihilationism - I am one of those, btw.
What is your argument against the Scriptures that seem to support a hell (of which so many mythologies have had)? What about Peter's rejected book that vividly describes hell?
Your faith in your own analysis is profound based upon how little an average human really knows.
Ugh, this tone make you sound like you think you're better than everyone else. Being THAT arrogant is not a worthwhile personality trait...oh hell, I am just an "average" human - what do I know?
Merely because you disagree with those reasons does not make your disagreement the correct way of looking at the situation.
I disagree with god's reasons because when I smash the rocks "all-loving" and "genocidal murderer" together, I simply cannot fool myself into making them fit as puzzle pieces like a Christian can. They instead break off into pieces because I cannot find it within myself to justify contradictory things. If I'm wrong and there really is a god like that, we're all screwed and I would worry about that wisp of confidence that you hold dear that you will somehow be spared from the monster.
this would mean that the woman would die of starvation.
But of course! The Bible has written for "those people" in "those times" - we don't have to take it literally anymore! ;D
God sure likes to author books...the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon... I guess the best he could do was "divinely inspire" some tent-dwellers during a time when mental illnesses always went undiagnosed. There's not going to be any sequels, right?
BTW. it almost appears that your "non belief" is really nothing more than someone who is bitter at God for Him doing things she disagrees with - perhaps weven personally.
When all else fails, blame the spunky atheist for being mad at your invisible friend! :thumbsup:
-
Why is RW contradicting and playing the blind card left and right? You'd think a guy who read the bible many times would know not to fall into contradi--oh....wait...I just answered my own question.
-
God is Love. Here's a little video some of you might enjoy. Watch closely. You might see the hand of God at work. Have a lovely day.
http://sadsickworld.com/?p=561&cpage=1#comment-315
-
Ah, Satan. Poor guy. You know it was really GENIUS of those original Bible writers to include such a character (not like they were the first ones to come up with a "devil"; does Hades ring a bell?). We as people simply cannot get over our lust with this good versus evil business.
Anyway, it was GENIUS because to include such a villain is to basically enslave Christianity's followers. This concept of "Ultimate Bad Boy" prevents otherwise good people from seeing we are not living in the days of the unknown anymore. What I mean is, because we know how so many things ACTUALLY work, we no longer have to follow the myths of our ancestors who couldn't enjoy such a privileged lifestyle. You are an atheist when it comes to the Egyptian gods, the Greek gods, the Roman gods (all invented by our ancestors to "explain things")...are you really going to bank on the delusion that the Christian (or Muslim or Hindu) god is any different???
Alas, the fear of death is one cruel b*tch...most people just cannot accept that it really is the end.
-
God is Love. Here's a little video some of you might enjoy. Watch closely. You might see the hand of God at work. Have a lovely day.
http://sadsickworld.com/?p=561&cpage=1#comment-315
Uh...I watched the video and saw nothing but an angry old man trying to ruin some little kids' fun and a concerned parent reassuring his child. Are you being serious by posting this video as an "example of god", or is this a joke?
-
God is Love. Here's a little video some of you might enjoy. Watch closely. You might see the hand of God at work. Have a lovely day.
http://sadsickworld.com/?p=561&cpage=1#comment-315
Not a joke. I am not surprised at your blindness.
Uh...I watched the video and saw nothing but an angry old man trying to ruin some little kids' fun and a concerned parent reassuring his child. Are you being serious by posting this video as an "example of god", or is this a joke?
-
Not a joke. I am not surprised at your blindness.
Care to point out what you think I'm missing?
-
Since an atheist is described as believing there is no GOD how can they explain where everyone comes from? Even with the Darwin theory of evolution life has to begin somewhere. So where does life begin? The Big Bang Theory is another explanation of life but again the question is where do the stars come from? How are the particles formed and from what? WHO created the particles, that formed the stars, that exploded forming the bacteria and so on...?
???
-
Not a joke. I am not surprised at your blindness.
Care to point out what you think I'm missing?
Nope
-
Since an atheist is described as believing there is no GOD how can they explain where everyone comes from? Even with the Darwin theory of evolution life has to begin somewhere. So where does life begin? The Big Bang Theory is another explanation of life but again the question is where do the stars come from? How are the particles formed and from what? WHO created the particles, that formed the stars, that exploded forming the bacteria and so on...?
???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm7nNXdqyPM&playnext_from=TL&videos=iw_pZMqOWvY
That's all I'm going to say. I'm tired of back-pedaling with arguments like this.
-
Since an atheist is described as believing there is no GOD how can they explain where everyone comes from? Even with the Darwin theory of evolution life has to begin somewhere. So where does life begin? The Big Bang Theory is another explanation of life but again the question is where do the stars come from? How are the particles formed and from what? WHO created the particles, that formed the stars, that exploded forming the bacteria and so on...?
???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm7nNXdqyPM&playnext_from=TL&videos=iw_pZMqOWvY
That's all I'm going to say. I'm tired of back-pedaling with arguments like this.
You're FINALLY TIRED! THANK GOD!
-
Nope
Haha, is it because you know your "evidence" is weak?
Let me put on my Christian hat here for a sec to see why you could possibly think this home video has ANYTHING to do with a god. You're obviously using it as some kind of weird analogy; the angry, pessimistic grandpa is the "militant atheist" and the belief in Santa is like the belief in god. Uh, sorry, just because you can "read into things" in a fantastical way doesn't mean that is actually what's going on here.
The only other thing I - as a Christian - could delude myself into thinking is an example of "god" is when the kid's dad turned to him and stroked him on the cheek to reassure him that there IS a Santa, I mistake this act as being Jesus or "the HAND of god" like you said. Later in the video you see the dad reach out and reassure his son again, this time with a tattoo of a snake visible on his forearm. The first time we see the dad reassure the kid there is no tattoo visible...OMG, it's god!
In reality, folks, you are missing the part of the story as to WHY the tattoo wasn't visible...it's because you only saw 2 inches of his forearm in the camera (him being the one recording and having to hold the camera with his other hand and all). Guess what, if you pause later in the video it is easy to compare how there is a few inches of difference from where the dad's hand is and the tattoo starts, completely confirming that it was the dad who reached out and stroked his son's cheek (not to mention he had the same voice when he spoke to his son as always!).
Perhaps I am just bonkers with my guessing where the god was in all of this, but I really can't see what else you could have meant. The fact that you won't even share your discovery is rather odd.
-
Nope
Haha, is it because you know your "evidence" is weak?
Let me put on my Christian hat here for a sec to see why you could possibly think this home video has ANYTHING to do with a god. You're obviously using it as some kind of weird analogy; the angry, pessimistic grandpa is the "militant atheist" and the belief in Santa is like the belief in god. Uh, sorry, just because you can "read into things" in a fantastical way doesn't mean that is actually what's going on here.
The only other thing I - as a Christian - could delude myself into thinking is an example of "god" is when the kid's dad turned to him and stroked him on the cheek to reassure him that there IS a Santa, I mistake this act as being Jesus or "the HAND of god" like you said. Later in the video you see the dad reach out and reassure his son again, this time with a tattoo of a snake visible on his forearm. The first time we see the dad reassure the kid there is no tattoo visible...OMG, it's god!
In reality, folks, you are missing the part of the story as to WHY the tattoo wasn't visible...it's because you only saw 2 inches of his forearm in the camera (him being the one recording and having to hold the camera with his other hand and all). Guess what, if you pause later in the video it is easy to compare how there is a few inches of difference from where the dad's hand is and the tattoo starts, completely confirming that it was the dad who reached out and stroked his son's cheek (not to mention he had the same voice when he spoke to his son as always!).
Perhaps I am just bonkers with my guessing where the god was in all of this, but I really can't see what else you could have meant. The fact that you won't even share your discovery is rather odd.
My answer was given to you in my OP.
-
Nope
Haha, is it because you know your "evidence" is weak?
Let me put on my Christian hat here for a sec to see why you could possibly think this home video has ANYTHING to do with a god. You're obviously using it as some kind of weird analogy; the angry, pessimistic grandpa is the "militant atheist" and the belief in Santa is like the belief in god. Uh, sorry, just because you can "read into things" in a fantastical way doesn't mean that is actually what's going on here.
The only other thing I - as a Christian - could delude myself into thinking is an example of "god" is when the kid's dad turned to him and stroked him on the cheek to reassure him that there IS a Santa, I mistake this act as being Jesus or "the HAND of god" like you said. Later in the video you see the dad reach out and reassure his son again, this time with a tattoo of a snake visible on his forearm. The first time we see the dad reassure the kid there is no tattoo visible...OMG, it's god!
In reality, folks, you are missing the part of the story as to WHY the tattoo wasn't visible...it's because you only saw 2 inches of his forearm in the camera (him being the one recording and having to hold the camera with his other hand and all). Guess what, if you pause later in the video it is easy to compare how there is a few inches of difference from where the dad's hand is and the tattoo starts, completely confirming that it was the dad who reached out and stroked his son's cheek (not to mention he had the same voice when he spoke to his son as always!).
Perhaps I am just bonkers with my guessing where the god was in all of this, but I really can't see what else you could have meant. The fact that you won't even share your discovery is rather odd.
My answer was given to you in my OP.
And beyond that, I will not go into explaining as you very obviously have a whole lot more time on your hands than I do.
-
And beyond that, I will not go into explaining as you very obviously have a whole lot more time on your hands than I do.
Because "God is Love" and love exists, therefore god exists? Hehe. Do you not think atheist/secular parents can love their kids? P.S. The dad said "f*ck" a few times in this video, not exactly your perfect example of god right there.
And why the judgment call? If a person gives a helpful, real explanation to your B.S. that means they don't have a life? Grow up.
-
Why is RW contradicting and playing the blind card left and right? You'd think a guy who read the bible many times would know not to fall into contradi--oh....wait...I just answered my own question.
I am fairly sure you have come to the same conclusion a couple of us have. I think most of his 'stories' are pure unadulterated :bs: beginning with the drugs and Coast Guard. He wants to come across as the learned academic, preaching down to we lowlifes from his Ivory Tower - "I was using the usus generalis principle of hermeneutics" - please. ::) That is really comical considering how many words he has used out of context and/or seemingly made up. The average age at death for homosexuals is 39 - NOT. I won't bother going back through his posts to find all the other examples of double-speak or incorrect information because it's not worth the time. He may impress some, but I am after all uneducated, ignorant, and only use a very tiny part of my brain. I was good enough though to fake my way into multiple working degrees in medicine (as opposed to esoteric ones) and even talked them into giving me my Masters Degree....oh well, one of these days I might just buckle down and learn something.
Edited to remove MY mistake in this post.
-
And beyond that, I will not go into explaining as you very obviously have a whole lot more time on your hands than I do.
Because "God is Love" and love exists, therefore god exists? Hehe. Do you not think atheist/secular parents can love their kids? P.S. The dad said "f*ck" a few times in this video, not exactly your perfect example of god right there.
And why the judgment call? If a person gives a helpful, real explanation to your B.S. that means they don't have a life? Grow up.
You really are amazing, queenie! I have never seen anyone as intent as you ...what exactly is it that you want? Are you the actual antichrist? Maybe that is what you wish to be. If so, then congratulations! You're IT!
-
God is Love. Here's a little video some of you might enjoy. Watch closely. You might see the hand of God at work. Have a lovely day.
http://sadsickworld.com/?p=561&cpage=1#comment-315
ok, I saw the video....I thought I was watching closely but I missed seeing the hand of God at work (I'm being serious), I really do not want to re-watch it, and all that yelling really upset my cat who came to me for comfort. Please, can you explain what I missed? :peace:
Of course, the obvious is an old angry man who is sick of buying Santa probably for as long as the little boys have been alive. Beyond that are parents who are trying to give their children a happy childhood (oh Queenie will jump on this for sure)_ yEs...we all know the truth about Santa....but there is nothing wrong with the childhood joy of Santa...let's just put that aside before Queen opens another big can of worms here.....
Look....do you not see forgiveness? Do you not see the love of God reaching out to the young child while at the same time not attacking his own father who is hurting his children? Do you not see love beyond all the misery and hurt here? This is a real family..it is not a made up story and it is one that is played out in many homes all the time. Faith is something that we all need in our lives every waking moment. It takes faith to step out of bed each day, to go out the door and into traffic, to work, to live. Yes, Faith, in something you cannot prove to exist. Some people I guess can live without faith. Therefore, they do not need God.
-
It takes faith to step out of bed each day, to go out the door and into traffic, to work, to live. Yes, Faith, in something you cannot prove to exist. Some people I guess can live without faith. Therefore, they do not need God.
It's called guts. *bleep*. Bravery. It's called exploring. Not knowing what's out there. These traits tantalize us to do these things. Faith seems just for the superstitious mindsets that believe an entity is watching over them to help them not be scared and get through these things. A crutch.
-
SherylsShado,
I stand corrected on the word, it must have been another one because you showed me that. ;)
-
but there is nothing wrong with the childhood joy of Santa...let's just put that aside before Queen opens another big can of worms here.....
Wow, that's a fast assumption if I ever saw one. Did you not read the key phrase "ruining the kids' fun" that I stated in my original response? I don't currently have kids nor do I celebrate Christmas, but if I did have kids, I wouldn't be so completely heartless as to not allow them to partake in forms of holiday joy. While I probably wouldn't lie to them about Santa, I don't look down on parents who do because it is actually a good way to develop their critical thinking skills...an exercise that might actually work against religious parents later in life when it comes to Jesus. ;)
Look....do you not see forgiveness? Do you not see the love of God reaching out to the young child while at the same time not attacking his own father who is hurting his children? Do you not see love beyond all the misery and hurt here?
I think the father reacted appropriately given the very clear fact that if HE had become just as angry as his dad, it would have frightened the small children who look up to their dad with trust. ANYONE who actually cares for their children would have acted in a similar way. Not all families are straight from the set of Jerry Springer!
In any event, the dad was not a complete saint, though; at the very end he joked about getting his dad a gun for Christmas...not exactly something one should be joking about considering his own father's attitude.
-
ro901,
Sorry, but I am not seeing what you are either. It makes no difference at all as to whether or not I believe in God, the video was loud and 'trashy'. Someone mentioned Jerry Springer and I can definitely see this being acted out on there. I don't know how to take this that you said:
"This is a real family..it is not a made up story"
Are you saying this was NOT done with rehearsing it? If you are, that is crazy because it is so amateur and if it IS unrehearsed, it borders on out and out abusive if you ask me. I don't disagree that their are things like this that happen everyday, but if this is reinforcement for why we should believe in God, it's missed the mark - completely. :confused1: Just my opinion.
-
haha are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?
forgive my "blasphemy," but jesus christ, please stop trolling
-
RW: Atheism is a feel good religion too.
You just can't get past this can you lol? Again, what you're saying is NOT collecting stamps is a hobby and baldness is a hairstyle.
You are correct. I cannot get over the strong faith of atheists.
-
2. Atheism is a feel good religion too.
You just can't get past this can you lol? Again, what you're saying is NOT collecting stamps is a hobby and baldness is a hairstyle.
Define religion please.
Here's a relatively decent definition, feel free to elaborate on it if you have a more complete definition:
Religion (from Latin religio, "reverence for the gods", "piety", possibly related to religare, "to bind"[1]) is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
So let's go down the list shall we...
Atheism:
Reverence for god(s) -- Nope, obvious
Belief in and worship of a god(s) -- Nope, precisely the lack there of
Explains the existence of and gives meaning to the universe -- Nope, atheism makes no claims on such subjects, because atheism entails and requires no beliefs; it requires nothing more than the lack of belief in deities.
Devotional and ritual observances -- Nope, I'm unaware of any such observances that are done "in the name of atheism" or "for atheism;" I certainly don't take part in anything "in the name of atheism" and I've been around my fair share of atheists who I don't recall participating either
Moral code -- Nope, atheism is not a moral code. You'll find many atheists claim themselves to be secular humanists...that's a moral code. Atheism? Not at all, it was never meant to be.
We could continue with some other generic aspects...
Dogma -- Nope, the only requirement to be an atheist is that you lack belief in deities. If the lack of belief in something is dogma, we have some issues to deal with.
Faith -- Nope, faith is only required when an individual makes a positive claim about some entity or occurrence without evidence to back the claim; atheism makes no positive claims about any entity or occurrence, an atheist claims he/she lacks belief in deities; the belief is non-present
Often includes some sacred narrative, be it written or oral -- Obvious nope, there is no book of atheism; no, The God Delusion is not a "book of atheism"
Focuses on an "ultimate truth" -- Nope, you cannot begin to generalize what all atheists believe on the ultimate truth of the universe, because atheism entails no beliefs
This is boring now. There's really no point in discussing anything with you until you can grasp the ridiculously easy point that atheism is purely the absence of religious belief in regards to deities. The absence of belief cannot be belief. The absence of belief requires no faith, it is not a belief.
If you study the term religion, it has a great variety of definitions. Even the Supreme Court has concluded that atheism is a religion. Sorry about your bad luck!
-
Good video with pretty pictures about FAITH, since the word has been abused so much in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/user/FFreeThinker#p/u/175/VWGbmNzb7fE
Please define the true definition of faith. This, I must see. Anyone can take pot shots!
-
RW,
In your listing of risky homosexual activities I find #6 to be interesting:
6. It is a strange coincidence that how so many medical problems are caused by violating simple Bible passages, don't you think?
Why do I say this? You seem to be addressing only homosexual practices here as far as the bible. For centuries, long before advanced medical sciences existed as we have today, people living then knew the basics of illness. Not eating flesh of cloven hooved animals - they knew then of the existence and correlation between pork and tapeworms, yes? Not eating the flesh of any animal found dead or torn by birds/beasts - the decaying process provides a host of parasites, yes? Not eating unclean fowl ie carrion birds, but those which eat berries are clean - carrion consume dead flesh/parasites, yes? Not eating animals that "scurry along the ground" ie order rodentia - they also eat any decaying/decayed matter, yes?
There are many other instances warning of forbidden things and I have obviously NOT cited exact passages, but surely you can see this was based upon the observation of a correlation between these things and disease, epidemics, and death.
I didn't bring up homosexuality. I am merely responding to the troll indtroduction of the subject. Atheists like to bring up the controversial topics in order to convince others that what the Bible says mujst be wrong.
-
Why is RW contradicting and playing the blind card left and right? You'd think a guy who read the bible many times would know not to fall into contradi--oh....wait...I just answered my own question.
I am fairly sure you have come to the same conclusion a couple of us have. I think most of his 'stories' are pure unadulterated :bs: beginning with the drugs and Coast Guard. He wants to come across as the learned academic, preaching down to we lowlifes from his Ivory Tower - "I was using the usus generalis principle of hermeneutics" - please. ::) That is really comical considering how many words he has used out of context and/or seemingly made up. The average age at death for homosexuals is 39 - NOT. I won't bother going back through his posts to find all the other examples of double-speak or incorrect information because it's not worth the time. He may impress some, but I am after all uneducated, ignorant, and only use a very tiny part of my brain. I was good enough though to fake my way into multiple working degrees in medicine (as opposed to esoteric ones) and even talked them into giving me my Masters Degree....oh well, one of these days I might just buckle down and learn something.
Edited to remove MY mistake in this post.
This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated. This ad hom is fun, but really reavels more about the author than any other point. Besides, you do not have to respond. Have a great day.
-
This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated.
Yes it does. You just don't want to acknowledge it. You do not get your definitions correct. Anyone who knows anything about atheism knows it is not a religion. You cannot get your own facts straight which makes us believe that you are lying; your motives seem extremely tainted as a few have pointed out. You defend the myths and beliefs despite their barbaric characteristics. Therefore this is not an ad hom fallacy. Liljp said it best--
"are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?"
You seriously need to get your definitions straight. Atheism is not a religion. Faith can have a number of meaning depending on what you're referring to. It almost seems like you strive on being incoherent. You're seeing things in black and white and that's the major problem here.
-
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
rwdeese, do you consider yourself an "absolute Christian"? And if so, how do you justify this without proof of god's existence or without claiming that you yourself are god?
-
RW: This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated.
Yes it does. You just don't want to acknowledge it.
No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad hominem is never an educated response - even if you disagree.
You do not get your definitions correct. Anyone who knows anything about atheism knows it is not a religion. You cannot get your own facts straight which makes us believe that you are lying; your motives seem extremely tainted as a few have pointed out. You defend the myths and beliefs despite their barbaric characteristics. Therefore this is not an ad hom fallacy.
1. You wrongly assume that your definition is the only possible answer.
2. You have not demonstrated anywhere that I have not got my facts straight. Merely saying that I do does not make it so.
3. Accusing someone of lying is ad hom - unless one can ABSOLUTELY prove that the other person is lying - which you cannot. I can quote plenty of definitions from plenty of sources that affirm my definition.
4. Very profound indeed; A person bringing up debate subjects in a debate section of a forum is tainted because he brings up debate subjects - wow! Will the silliness ever end.
5. You attack openly (militant atheist) the Christian world view (and I am the troll...lol) by stating unsubstantiated statements and I am to be merely passive on the subject - how absurd.
Liljp said it best--
"are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?"
You seriously need to get your definitions straight. Atheism is not a religion. Faith can have a number of meaning depending on what you're referring to. It almost seems like you strive on being incoherent. You're seeing things in black and white and that's the major problem here.
His Cavalier Dismissal provides the cover up, but really amounts to an ad hom. As if what he says proves anything, but that he disagrees with it! So!
Sure, atheists ascribe to the idea (not fact) of the an absence of a belief in god. However, this is not say that an atheist does not place their faith in something else. There may be atheists that "claim" they do not place their faith in anything, but this is an illusion. Atheists are forced, logically, to place their faith in many things. They trust their own reasoning abilities - that what they reason is absolutely true. Of course, the mind cannot deceive itself...lol. They trust in a un-provable mysteries - they believe that the universe came about mysteriously on its own, yet, not a single shred of evidence. They trust in science and reason - believing what has been presented is in fact the whole story. They place their faith in scientists - actually believing that scientists have correctly reasoned what they have discovered. They place their fain in the scientific community - actually believing that all these scientists are so noble they would never taint the evidence for name recognition. I can go on with many beliefs that atheists hold, however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.
-
And your religion boils down to one big argument from authority (the Bible, the church, god).
People who throw around debate terms every chance they get as a response to intelligent discourse are really annoying. I realize I just did it above (lol), but I rarely do it myself because it's inane.
-
No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad hominem is never an educated response - even if you disagree.
"The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
You wrongly assume that your definition is the only possible answer.
Hey I know both sides, buddy. Unless you have rational proof that goes beyond the gates of skepticism, prove me wrong. Or are you going to play the cop-out god card again like all the other christians?
You have not demonstrated anywhere that I have not got my facts straight. Merely saying that I do does not make it so.
Everyone else has though. You can just play the mystery card because we do not know you personally.
A person bringing up debate subjects in a debate section of a forum is tainted because he brings up debate subjects - wow! Will the silliness ever end.
No...your personal criteria seems very tainted.
You attack openly (militant atheist) the Christian world view (and I am the troll...lol) by stating unsubstantiated statements and I am to be merely passive on the subject - how absurd.
You've been extremely pompous. I think that's pretty obvious to everyone. And I'm not an atheist.
They trust in science and reason - believing what has been presented is in fact the whole story.
I think we need to realize that there are different types of faith. One relies on the need to REALISTICALLY define ones surroundings (having faith to build a rocket and go to the moon) and one relies on hoping for the undefined/unrealistic/irrational to take place via old texts from ancient cultures (god's gonna come down and smite ya'll for being hot lesbians!).
I can go on with many beliefs that atheists hold, however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.
Your whole last paragraph..well...for a guy who believes that slavery is okay, evolution is false, atheism is a religion, homosexuality is horrible, and in the fairy tales spread across your ancient text...it's rather difficult for me to take you seriously. OMG I FELLED FOR SOME LOJIKAL FALLASSY PROLLY
-
however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.
You seem to be mocking an atheists trust in their own reasoning and the reasoning of educated individuals, but ignore the fact that your own Christian beliefs also all boil down to trusting what you perceive to be true.
-
rwdeese:
This doesn't sound like a response from one who has been educated. This ad hom is fun, but really reavels more about the author than any other point. Besides, you do not have to respond. Have a great day.
If you'd like, we can discuss Girard, Heidegger, or anyone else. I can start throwing around more educated phrases for you and I can also debate various aspects and schools of thinking re biblical hermeneutics. You seem to be a fan of switching between them while posting your most learned opinions (sic). Your thinking on homosexuals is obviously employing the dispensation principle ie punishment from God and the homosexual's responsibility for his actions. You incorporate the breach principle while countering queen's population remarks and using the scriptural passages re Noah's Ark. Debating the proper definition of an atheist is clearly the application principle ie the definition is true only after finding the correct (obviously your's) interpretation. Now, these may be loosely applied here, but I would hope you can see what I am getting at. This is not a forum bogged down with theological scholars, now is it? How many people actually even bother to read or understand what you write when you have to stroke your own ego by 'dazzling' us with your words? If I wanted to come across as a pompous know it all, I wouldn't expect anyone on here NOT to call ME out on it.
I am also not an atheist who knows nothing of God and then decided to find everything I could to disprove there is one. I had a very strong foothold in religion and a very deep belief from the age of around 6 into my late 20's. It was NOT a passing thing where I simply put in an appearance at church every Sunday and I was not a raging fanatic. I had an unwavering, deep, and personal relationship with him. So don't throw me under the bus and pass me off as just another atheist. I could give a rat's *bleep* as to your opinion on how much of my grey matter has been enhanced by education - I know what I do to earn a living.
Have a great night!
-
I think we need to realize that there are different types of faith. One relies on the need to REALISTICALLY define ones surroundings (having faith to build a rocket and go to the moon) and one relies on hoping for the undefined/unrealistic/irrational to take place via old texts from ancient cultures (god's gonna come down and smite ya'll for being hot lesbians!).
This is epic truth right here! And hot lesbians...oh my! ;D
-
i agree with ya there sheryl :)
-
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
rwdeese, do you consider yourself an "absolute Christian"? And if so, how do you justify this without proof of god's existence or without claiming that you yourself are god?
This is like the old chestnut question "When did you stop beating your wife?" How does one respond. Question framing arguments are no win arguments, so I will let others categorize me as they wish. As far as proof of God's existence goes, I haven't even began discussing that topic yet. I have merely chosen to deal with those arguments being made by the local atheists here first. Thanks for the question.
-
I don't think he's "pompous", sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.
I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma). To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line! Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.
-
I don't think he's "pompous", sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.
I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma). To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line! Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.
queenofnines,
Thank you for trying to get the (my) point across again. ;) There is a line and it has been crossed. As I said, this is not a forum laden with theologians. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so put off by it. It is almost like a 7th grader who is having a problem understanding intro to Basic Algebra being thrown in a room with a group of students discussing quantum mechanics. :P
edited to add: By the way, have you noticed how much he sounds like stealth? Interesting.....
-
I don't think he's "pompous", sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.
I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma). To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line! Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.
I totally embrace the criticism of being pompous by those that have made these criticisms here. Now, can we get on with the issues - thanks!
-
I don't think he's "pompous", sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way.
I agree with that except for the first part (before the comma). To an outsider, it can seem like a fine line sometimes between determining who's highly intelligent and who's just pompous, but there's definitely a line! Using lots of big words or phrases that don't really make sense, announcing your educational status when it's not relevant, labeling every opposing viewpoint as wrong without justification for doing so, using debate terms (like ad hominem, straw man) ad nauseum...these are all characteristics of being pompous in my book and things rwdeese has been guilty of.
queenofnines,
Thank you for trying to get the (my) point across again. ;) There is a line and it has been crossed. As I said, this is not a forum laden with theologians. If it was, I wouldn't be quite so put off by it. It is almost like a 7th grader who is having a problem understanding intro to Basic Algebra being thrown in a room with a group of students discussing quantum mechanics. :P
Ok, I understand that this criticism is important and interesting for some, but let us get on with the debate. Thanks!
-
Everyone's different. Everyone comes from different backgrounds, different educations, different stages of life, different religions, & they have different writing styles. I haven't had a problem with rwdeese's posts. I find them clearly written & well stated for the most part. I haven't found anything to criticize him for and I've been looking. I find his posts refreshing, and wish I could put things as well as he does. I really don't think he's posting to "attack" anyone. I don't think he's "pompous", sometimes highly intelligent people can seem that way. (I'm not saying jordandog isn't highly intelligent, she is, but her style is more "down to earth". There's ALOT of highly intelligent people whose style is "down-to-earth". I think I'm a "down to earth" style but I get bored easily---so something written in rwdeese's type of style, I do actually find "dazzling". I can learn from alot of his posts even if it's just to go look up a long word I don't know. Everyone has something different to contribute to the forum, it keeps it interesting. Noone is looking to a forum to "get saved" or discover ways to "lose their belief". "Debate & Discuss"...nothing more & nothing less. :peace:
You seem very wise and practical. I may be pompous. However, it is a criticism that is merely meant to cover all the real discussions on the topic. I am trying not to attack anyone in particular, but I am definately attacking their arguments. If I have attacked anyone, you can let me know - I will apologize and continue with the discussion. Thanks
-
And your religion boils down to one big argument from authority (the Bible, the church, god).
People who throw around debate terms every chance they get as a response to intelligent discourse are really annoying. I realize I just did it above (lol), but I rarely do it myself because it's inane.
1. You assume what my arguments are, I see - ok, I understand.
2. I am sorry that I am annoying you. If people are going to claim that they are using reason as a foundation for their belief system, then the reasoning needs to be evaluated. Using debate terms is a quick way of evaluating an argument. Perhaps you have all the time in the day to debate. Some of us don't, so it has a very practical side to it - it saves time trying to debate something that amounts to no argument at all.
-
2. If one is not an absolute atheist, then by definition, one is an agnostic.
rwdeese, do you consider yourself an "absolute Christian"? And if so, how do you justify this without proof of god's existence or without claiming that you yourself are god?
This is like the old chestnut question "When did you stop beating your wife?" How does one respond. Question framing arguments are no win arguments, so I will let others categorize me as they wish. As far as proof of God's existence goes, I haven't even began discussing that topic yet. I have merely chosen to deal with those arguments being made by the local atheists here first. Thanks for the question.
My question isn't loaded at all, unless you're refering to my assumption that you're a Christian, but I thought it was already well established that you are. I didn't ask when you decided you were god, or ask why you had decided that your reasoning and logic were more sound than another's. There is no reason you can't answer the question I asked with a simple yes or a no without implying that you are something that you're not.
And if you have proof of god's existence I don't see why you would refuse to present it. It would certainly make the argument between you and the local atheists quite a bit shorter - unless the proof is not irrefutable in which case I'd refer back to my question of do you consider yourself an absolute Christian, or do you defer to agnostic Christian since there is no absolute proof of an existence of god?
-
rwdeese:
Ok, I understand that this criticism is important and interesting for some, but let us get on with the debate. Thanks!
You know what? That, right there, is a very snide and backhanded attack on me. As if the only things "important" or "interesting' to me is criticising you. Implying I obviously lack any ability to discuss, debate, or present a valid point of view. More of your pompousness shining through right there!
Well, this 'idiot' needs to get some sleep so I'll have to be enlightened by you later on.
-
RW: No, it doesn't. Argumentum ad hominem is never an educated response - even if you disagree.
"The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
I stand corrected. However, this is extremely rare, and it is not used arbitrarily merely because someone disagrees with another. Most of the time it is used, it is used by those who may be hiding behind the argument as a means to hide their own conduct, character, motives, etc... So, when one constantly personally attacks another, they are the ones who usually are suspect. We see this in counseling constantly - i.e. a husband who constantly accuses his wife of being an adulterer. Once all the facts are in, we discover that the one who is doing all the accusing was the one doing all the acts of adultery. So, a wise person will be very careful when throwing around ad homs.
RW: You wrongly assume that your definition is the only possible answer.
Hey I know both sides, buddy. Unless you have rational proof that goes beyond the gates of skepticism, prove me wrong. Or are you going to play the cop-out god card again like all the other christians?
I have heard this argument a thousand times. Perhaps you haven't been following what I have written. I have made it very clear that I will not present all my arguments at this time (although I did demonstrate that the age of man and the population is impossible under evolution). I will present my view of evidential faith in the future. If you have noticed, I haven't copped out on any response - unless time has prevented me. You may accuse me of cop outs, but I can only handle one set of arguments at a time, and quite frankly, I have been taking apart the ten reasons for not believing in a God. The first two have no validity at all. I will continue that as time allows, but believe me, I will not ignore the positive side of my position at all. I say that to say that your criticism is more emotive than factual.
RW: You have not demonstrated anywhere that I have not got my facts straight. Merely saying that I do does not make it so.
Everyone else has though. You can just play the mystery card because we do not know you personally.
I totally disagree with you - who? and how? I do not believe you can prove this statement at all. This is just more unsubstantiated jargon.
RW:A person bringing up debate subjects in a debate section of a forum is tainted because he brings up debate subjects - wow! Will the silliness ever end.
[qutoe]No...your personal criteria seems very tainted.[/quote]
...and you declaring this so makes it so, right? When will you actually debate anything? What are you afraid of? You already are an unbeliever!
RW: You attack openly (militant atheist) the Christian world view (and I am the troll...lol) by stating unsubstantiated statements and I am to be merely passive on the subject - how absurd.
You've been extremely pompous. I think that's pretty obvious to everyone. And I'm not an atheist.
Ok, so what if I have been perceived as pompous. Now - can we get on with the issues. These side issues are fun, and I am sure the criticisms against me make you feel better, but really - what do they really prove? They don't prove your right!
RW: They trust in science and reason - believing what has been presented is in fact the whole story.
I think we need to realize that there are different types of faith.
Finally, you are engaging in the discussion.. whew! I agree. There are many types of faith. In fact, there are more categories than what you mention below:
One relies on the need to REALISTICALLY define ones surroundings (having faith to build a rocket and go to the moon) and one relies on hoping for the undefined/unrealistic/irrational to take place via old texts from ancient cultures (god's gonna come down and smite ya'll for being hot lesbians!).
1. Making a false comparison like having the faith to build a rocket that goes to the moon (which is a hard science), and implying that relying on the un-provable science of evolution is absurd. One is in no way equal to the other!
2. Using the rules of evidence, which is firmly grounded in sound reason, is not irrational, undefined nor unrealistic. This is the foundation for all knowledge. Do you deny this?
RW: I can go on with many beliefs that atheists hold, however, it all boils down to trusting that what they perceive to be true is actually so.
Your whole last paragraph..well...for a guy who believes that slavery is okay, evolution is false, atheism is a religion, homosexuality is horrible, and in the fairy tales spread across your ancient text...it's rather difficult for me to take you seriously. OMG I FELLED FOR SOME LOJIKAL FALLASSY PROLLY
If you do not want to take me seriously, that is fine. It does not change the truth. This form of Cavalier Dismissal and Ad Hom is more telling than the criticisms themselves. You do not have to read what I write. No one is forcing you to. However, I will continue to show the readers all your Ad Homs and Cavalier Dismissals so that everyone can see who bases what they believe on reason as opposed to emotion.
I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist. In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!
-
By the way, have you noticed how much he sounds like stealth? Interesting.....
Yes I have! I noticed this a few days ago...I didn't bring it up, though, because I didn't want those two to gang up and become buddies. lol! Good thing Stealth only comes around once a month or so...
The last thing I said to that guy was:
"Are you 'enlightened' enough to know that pretty much every reply you make on this forum comes across as arrogant academia? Having every line of yours read like yuppy B.S. is quite annoying. You're not some world-renowned philosopher, so stop making yourself look bad by spewing esoteric concepts that have no real substance behind them."
Needles to say, this message applies to more than one person... ;)
-
I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!! Close-mindedness to the core.
I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.
And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you! This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?
In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!
I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you. Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.
-
I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!! Close-mindedness to the core.
I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.
And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you! This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?
In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!
I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you. Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.
What? You never look in the mirror? Here's a song dedicated just to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP1YGp68A-E&feature=related
-
haha are people still seriously giving the time of day to a guy who states there's nothing morally wrong with owning human beings?
forgive my "blasphemy," but jesus christ, please stop trolling
Ad Hom - fun, interesting, but unimportant
-
My question isn't loaded at all, unless you're refering to my assumption that you're a Christian, but I thought it was already well established that you are
.
You assume correctly
I didn't ask when you decided you were god, or ask why you had decided that your reasoning and logic were more sound than another's. There is no reason you can't answer the question I asked with a simple yes or a no without implying that you are something that you're not.
ok
And if you have proof of god's existence I don't see why you would refuse to present it.
Actually, I am not refusing to do anything. I am not equipped time wise to present every argument. My first goal is to finish answering the 10 reasons not to believe in a God, with a little fun excursions from time to time. Although, I have demonstrated one argument against evolution - i.e. concerning population growth and real math. Perhaps you can prove how the math doesn't work?
It would certainly make the argument between you and the local atheists quite a bit shorter - unless the proof is not irrefutable in which case I'd refer back to my question of do you consider yourself an absolute Christian, or do you defer to agnostic Christian since there is no absolute proof of an existence of god?
Well, I prefer being more thorough than that - this is why I am dealing with the reasons for one not to believe in God arguments first. I will deal with the other aspects later. True debate must both eliminate false arguments and present better arguments.
-
You assume correctly
Well then I will rephrase, and perhaps you will give me an answer. Do you consider yourself an absolute believer in god? And if so, how do you justify this without solid proof of existence?
-
rwdeese:
Ok, I understand that this criticism is important and interesting for some, but let us get on with the debate. Thanks!
You know what? That, right there, is a very snide and backhanded attack on me. As if the only things "important" or "interesting' to me is criticising you. Implying I obviously lack any ability to discuss, debate, or present a valid point of view. More of your pompousness shining through right there!
Well, this 'idiot' needs to get some sleep so I'll have to be enlightened by you later on.
1. Perhaps you can demonstrate that you can debate instead of criticize. It would be refreshing.
2. It is very humorous for anyone to actually not see that to constantly blasts another for being pompous is, in and of itself, pompous: "bombastic" is one definition.
3. I know you enjoy this, but lets move on. This really doesn't produce anything of value.
4. For the record, I do not think anyone is an idiot here. I do think that they have not looked at all the evidence, however, and some of the "reasons" for not believing in God are no more than myths and philosophical nonsense. Just so you understand - I think many of us Christians believe in God the same way.
-
Yes I have! I noticed this a few days ago...I didn't bring it up, though, because I didn't want those two to gang up and become buddies. lol! Good thing Stealth only comes around once a month or so...
The last thing I said to that guy was:
"Are you 'enlightened' enough to know that pretty much every reply you make on this forum comes across as arrogant academia? Having every line of yours read like yuppy B.S. is quite annoying. You're not some world-renowned philosopher, so stop making yourself look bad by spewing esoteric concepts that have no real substance behind them."
Needles to say, this message applies to more than one person... ;)
I do not really know what is worse - those who claim great amounts of knowledge without evidence - or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!
-
I have never seen so much "militant defense" of one's own stance in my life!!! Close-mindedness to the core.
Now I am being accused of being closed minded. I am enjoying this ride. The reality is this: closed mindedness is a concept that says that after one has been shown the evidence, one refuses to believe the evidence. Exactly what evidence have I been shown? If I had a choice, however, on the more philosophical side to be one who is closed minded and one who is open minded, I would rather be closed minded. If I were to be open minded, my very brain might fall out - then I might believe anything!
RW: I was proud of you for a moment for actually engaging in the conversation, but then you couldn't resist.
And you got mad at me in the other thread for "mocking" you! This is extremely insulting; Falconer is BRILLIANT, and in any case, do you really think he cares what the hell you think of him?
The fact of the case is that he has not engaged in any real conversation. He may be brilliant, who knows. All I know is that when one continually attacks another - that is not very brilliant! I do not believe he cares what I think of him - but that is not the point. If he wants to discuss the topics - great! I am all for that - I am still waiting for him to do so - and that is a fact. Anyone can check out all his comments towards me!
RW: In counseling, this may be attributed to a person who is dealing with excessive amounts of guilt. Talk to you soon!
I'm sure a counselor would have a thing or two to say about you. Also, consistently ending with a fake cheerful ending is not helping you.
1. I have worked with many counselors. I already know what they say about me...lol
2. I am surprised about how judgmental you atheists/agnostics are! Now you are judgin my motives. Does it ever end with you guys? Fascinating! Someone ought to do a research project on this to find out what drives it? None the less, I am not trying to show myself as anything, but one who is trying to debate some subject. My cheerfulness is a natural disposition - at least that is what everyone tells me except on a board like this...lol so, here is my "fake" cheerfulness - cheers!
-
I am not equipped time wise to present every argument.
But you seem to expect that atheists are.
-
I have a Dog.
(So far this is the only post in this thread not completely full of BS :P)
-
or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!
Once again, you are guilty of this as well (mocking). If you bothered to look at the history of posts beyond this specific thread of the people you claim are attacking you, you'd see that their style is filled with plenty of good info and insights and does not personally attack all the time for no good reason. That being said, this is a forum, and if you expect people to not call you on your sh*t when you are blatantly spewing nonsense, you're in the wrong place. If you truly knew what objective meant, you would be able to see that.
I think it's about time to wrap up this poor thread. It's obviously going nowhere. :'(
-
The fact that they knew we were dust says something. We are dust (star dust).
- There are two different stories of man's creation in Genesis. One of the earliest examples of a contradiction in the Bible.
- Star dust is not the same thing as dirt dust. It's quite clear the latter is what Biblegod is referring to.
- Since you mentioned dust, snakes don't literally eat it like the Bible says they're supposed to. They have heads that can swallow small animals whole for their diet.
P.S. Only a very small percentage of scientists believe in "intelligent design". 1% fringe loonies versus 99% sound scientists is not a balanced argument.
(I'm not saying the 1% is completely incapable of good science, btw)
-
You assume correctly
Well then I will rephrase, and perhaps you will give me an answer. Do you consider yourself an absolute believer in god? And if so, how do you justify this without solid proof of existence?
I believe in God.
I base my believe on the rules of evidence.
Blessings
-
I have a Dog.
(So far this is the only post in this thread not completely full of BS :P)
These kind of statements say more about the author then about the posts.
-
RW: or those who have the evidence but use terms that offend the first claiments? Which one is truly arrogant - ones who continually personally attack others - or, ones who try to keep to the subjects being debated? I wonder how an objective observer would answer these questions? oh well!
Once again, you are guilty of this as well (mocking).
These are known as rhetorical statements. They only mock those who practice them? They are specifically designed to show how silly regular ad homs are. I am glad you acknowledged them, in a round about way, of course.
If you bothered to look at the history of posts beyond this specific thread of the people you claim are attacking you, you'd see that their style is filled with plenty of good info and insights and does not personally attack all the time for no good reason.
Actually, you are wrong. I would say that there may have been 5% of legitimate discussion that has taken place.
That being said, this is a forum, and if you expect people to not call you on your sh*t when you are blatantly spewing nonsense, you're in the wrong place.
I think an objective observor would notice that the non-sense is not coming from my side. en your first five arguments about why one should not believe in God proves this one! They are mere shallow emotive appeals to those who have not done any serious research. So far, no one has called me on my .............! Why? Because they haven't prsented anything that legitimately pcountered anything - they are too busy name calling!
If you truly knew what objective meant, you would be able to see that.
Now, I must admit, coming from you, this is a wild statement. Again, all one needs to do is read your first five arguments why one should not believe in God and one will quickly realize that objectivity is not what you use for your arguments.
I think it's about time to wrap up this poor thread. It's obviously going nowhere. :'(
You are right about that - ting for real conversation about the points prsented (actually there is one person who has engaged a little bit)
-
all one needs to do is read your first five arguments why one should not believe in God and one will quickly realize that objectivity is not what you use for your arguments.
This is the only part worth responding to. It is by being objective that I got out of Christianity...by realizing/learning about the types of things I presented in my quick list. After 5 years of mostly just going with the believing crowd and being willfully naive like most Christians, I began to read the Bible cover-to-cover and desire REAL truth...whether that truth pointed to there being a god, or not. I dared to ask myself, "What are the reasons atheists are convinced there's not a god?" and *explore that*, thinking surely they wouldn't be so hasty as to risk damning their eternal souls on a whim.
-
I believe in God.
I base my believe on the rules of evidence.
There is no absolute evidence that god exists, and no absolute evidence that he doesn't. Everyone can argue all they want, but the fact that people can argue about it only helps to prove that point. You refuse to answer the question directly of whether you're an absolute believer or an agnostic believer, but you have to be one or the other. One makes you arrogant under your own definition, the other shows that you do not have the proof you pretend to. Again, if there was proof either way we wouldn't be here debating. You are not some great holder of truth. Take a long look in the mirror and humble yourself a bit.