Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Atheism: Skepticism vs. Rejection

TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 8:28:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
SUB-TITLE - Theism: Belief vs. Ego

I've heard a lot of theists claim atheists are simply "rejecting" all the proof and faith in God... I never really thought or cared much about it, I've always just dismissed it as an ignorant argument used when theists have nothing left to say.

But I have always figured that the way most people view God is merely personification and projection. However I assumed it was a collective thing, that the reason people believe God is religions teach that God created every person with a purpose or whatever, and that mankind is this one thing he's achieved that he's actually proud of, and this feeds into ego.

I think this guy summarises it much better, though, showing how personal the belief in a God can really be, and even shows why a theist might accuse an atheist of "rejecting" God...

https://www.youtube.com...

I find I'm quite the inhuman oddity compared to a lot of people, and that I've always viewed the human psyche from a bit of an external perspective, not really understanding lack of mental or emotional control over certain things personally (e.g. it leads me to the controversial opinions that alcoholism isn't a disease and being gay OR straight or even staying asexual are all choices), but always observing and understanding it in other people.

So this is something I've never previously considered but I think it's very interesting. Instead of just disagreeing with things, I try to understand the perspective of those who I disagree with, which with theism is actually relatively easy in most cases, but I found the consistency the confused over the huge variety of perspectives found in theists. Now I understand that theists may be reflecting themselves through God, it should serve as a great way to understand their view in future debates - or to just avoid them on the first sign of this happening, as I'd basically be arguing with a person over whether they themselves are rational... hmm...

Atheists may comment on what they think about theists beliefs - whether they are really just beliefs and how ego clearly pays a role in so many views.

Theists may similarly comment on what they think about atheist skepticism, as well as any egotistical patterns in other theists beliefs (as there's a billion kinds of theist)

Anyone else doesn't exist...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 9:12:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 8:28:15 AM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
SUB-TITLE - Theism: Belief vs. Ego

I've heard a lot of theists claim atheists are simply "rejecting" all the proof and faith in God... I never really thought or cared much about it, I've always just dismissed it as an ignorant argument used when theists have nothing left to say.

But I have always figured that the way most people view God is merely personification and projection. However I assumed it was a collective thing, that the reason people believe God is religions teach that God created every person with a purpose or whatever, and that mankind is this one thing he's achieved that he's actually proud of, and this feeds into ego.

I think this guy summarises it much better, though, showing how personal the belief in a God can really be, and even shows why a theist might accuse an atheist of "rejecting" God...

https://www.youtube.com...

I find I'm quite the inhuman oddity compared to a lot of people, and that I've always viewed the human psyche from a bit of an external perspective, not really understanding lack of mental or emotional control over certain things personally (e.g. it leads me to the controversial opinions that alcoholism isn't a disease and being gay OR straight or even staying asexual are all choices), but always observing and understanding it in other people.

So this is something I've never previously considered but I think it's very interesting. Instead of just disagreeing with things, I try to understand the perspective of those who I disagree with, which with theism is actually relatively easy in most cases, but I found the consistency the confused over the huge variety of perspectives found in theists. Now I understand that theists may be reflecting themselves through God, it should serve as a great way to understand their view in future debates - or to just avoid them on the first sign of this happening, as I'd basically be arguing with a person over whether they themselves are rational... hmm...


Atheists may comment on what they think about theists beliefs - whether they are really just beliefs and how ego clearly pays a role in so many views.

Theists may similarly comment on what they think about atheist skepticism, as well as any egotistical patterns in other theists beliefs (as there's a billion kinds of theist)

Anyone else doesn't exist...

Darkmatter2525 makes SOME thought provoking videos, but whenever he concludes the claim that it's all in a person's head or ego, that sounds like a knowledge claim. I don't think you can know for sure. I was watching a lecture by AronRa about what we can and can't know. It was about Sye Ten Bruggencate and his debate with the guy who claimed everybodyc including newborn infants, know that God exists. Aron then points to an atheist by the name of David Silverman and points to the ads that said "It's a myth and you know it." Aron argues you can't really mean this because some people don't know its a myth because they honestly believe what they believe. He goes to compare Sye and Issac Newton. Both claimed to reveal divine revelation from God in the spirit, but Sye believed the trinity compared to Issac's monotheist Christianity.

I do believe the God concept can be taken when you take a pre existing God and mold him for your culture. Such as the American Jesus created by Todd Starnes, who said Jesus would thank the snipers for ridding the world of godless jihadists. Jesus was against violence and Bill Maher explained how Jesus' true teachings were distorted. "Jesus said love thy neighbor. He didn't say, and if that doesn't work, send a titanium fanged dog to rip his nuts off." So the original gods are corrupted by their images.
TheAnonymousTipster
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 9:36:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 9:12:03 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I was watching a lecture by AronRa about what we can and can't know. It was about Sye Ten Bruggencate and his debate with the guy who claimed everybodyc including newborn infants, know that God exists.
Sounds like opinion from propaganda. Babies know very little, most of it's geared towards surviving past infancy. Claiming they 'know' God exists is pretty bold and I'd like to see how exactly they came to that conclusion.

Aron then points to an atheist by the name of David Silverman and points to the ads that said "It's a myth and you know it." Aron argues you can't really mean this because some people don't know its a myth because they honestly believe what they believe. He goes to compare Sye and Issac Newton. Both claimed to reveal divine revelation from God in the spirit, but Sye believed the trinity compared to Issac's monotheist Christianity.
Here in the UK religion seems to take much more of a back seat in everything. People 'believe' God, but they can't really explain what or who he's supposed to be and why they believe it.

In the US it seems there's a lot more people actively following a barbaric medieval view of Christianity. It seems most of the time that the smarter they get at arguing for their 'belief', the more they come off as not actually believing in what they themselves are saying. The more intelligent sounding a theist is in a debate, the more it seems he's merely good at debating with fallacies and not actually taking a serious shot at understanding the opposition, which really disturbs me. It's almost like they're trying to convince people to believe in God, so they can turn around and say "Ha ha! Fooled you!". It simply doesn't seem genuine most of the time, when they purposely ignore facts and using circular reasoning so obvious it seems intentional.

Indoctrinators, and the indoctrinated. The line in theism can be hard to identify. There can of course be people who follow the belief without so much indoctrination, but they are then more prone to indoctrination. Organised religion is wrong in every way I look at it. The only true beliefs are the ones people come to personally, and that cannot possibly be organised so well.

I do believe the God concept can be taken when you take a pre existing God and mold him for your culture. Such as the American Jesus created by Todd Starnes, who said Jesus would thank the snipers for ridding the world of godless jihadists. Jesus was against violence and Bill Maher explained how Jesus' true teachings were distorted. "Jesus said love thy neighbor. He didn't say, and if that doesn't work, send a titanium fanged dog to rip his nuts off." So the original gods are corrupted by their images.
I think this is where Christianity starts to get tricky. Cultures change and adapt, but in order for religions based on books written thousands of years ago to really have much credibility, they need to at least appear to remain consistent. While Catholics basically ignore the Holy Book, Christians persist on cherishing the remaining 40% of it. Of course, throwing rocks at sinners seems to have died out mostly, but homosexuality is still something they're struggling on. How can Christians get around the Bible clearly stating man with man is a sin? They're finding many ways, but none yet seem universal. All these divides add up and produce the lunatics you may see today, who resort to picking and choosing what appeals to them. The only way this thing has maintained so much credibility is through individual egos and possibly desperation.

Being okay with others not having the same opinion as you is hard enough, but when you apparently have an ego which is omnipotent, omniscient and generally harsh, it becomes very dangerous.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:13:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 9:36:56 AM, TheAnonymousTipster wrote:
At 1/31/2015 9:12:03 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I was watching a lecture by AronRa about what we can and can't know. It was about Sye Ten Bruggencate and his debate with the guy who claimed everybodyc including newborn infants, know that God exists.
Sounds like opinion from propaganda. Babies know very little, most of it's geared towards surviving past infancy. Claiming they 'know' God exists is pretty bold and I'd like to see how exactly they came to that conclusion.

Aron then points to an atheist by the name of David Silverman and points to the ads that said "It's a myth and you know it." Aron argues you can't really mean this because some people don't know its a myth because they honestly believe what they believe. He goes to compare Sye and Issac Newton. Both claimed to reveal divine revelation from God in the spirit, but Sye believed the trinity compared to Issac's monotheist Christianity.
Here in the UK religion seems to take much more of a back seat in everything. People 'believe' God, but they can't really explain what or who he's supposed to be and why they believe it.

In the US it seems there's a lot more people actively following a barbaric medieval view of Christianity. It seems most of the time that the smarter they get at arguing for their 'belief', the more they come off as not actually believing in what they themselves are saying. The more intelligent sounding a theist is in a debate, the more it seems he's merely good at debating with fallacies and not actually taking a serious shot at understanding the opposition, which really disturbs me. It's almost like they're trying to convince people to believe in God, so they can turn around and say "Ha ha! Fooled you!". It simply doesn't seem genuine most of the time, when they purposely ignore facts and using circular reasoning so obvious it seems intentional.

Indoctrinators, and the indoctrinated. The line in theism can be hard to identify. There can of course be people who follow the belief without so much indoctrination, but they are then more prone to indoctrination. Organised religion is wrong in every way I look at it. The only true beliefs are the ones people come to personally, and that cannot possibly be organised so well.

I do believe the God concept can be taken when you take a pre existing God and mold him for your culture. Such as the American Jesus created by Todd Starnes, who said Jesus would thank the snipers for ridding the world of godless jihadists. Jesus was against violence and Bill Maher explained how Jesus' true teachings were distorted. "Jesus said love thy neighbor. He didn't say, and if that doesn't work, send a titanium fanged dog to rip his nuts off." So the original gods are corrupted by their images.
I think this is where Christianity starts to get tricky. Cultures change and adapt, but in order for religions based on books written thousands of years ago to really have much credibility, they need to at least appear to remain consistent. While Catholics basically ignore the Holy Book, Christians persist on cherishing the remaining 40% of it. Of course, throwing rocks at sinners seems to have died out mostly, but homosexuality is still something they're struggling on. How can Christians get around the Bible clearly stating man with man is a sin? They're finding many ways, but none yet seem universal. All these divides add up and produce the lunatics you may see today, who resort to picking and choosing what appeals to them. The only way this thing has maintained so much credibility is through individual egos and possibly desperation.

Being okay with others not having the same opinion as you is hard enough, but when you apparently have an ego which is omnipotent, omniscient and generally harsh, it becomes very dangerous.

I'll post a video of an abridged version of the "Refining Reason" debate between Sye and Matt Diliahunty from the atheist experience.

Anyways, Christians need to learn logic and reason so they can understand what it is they say to preach. Sye is an example. He actually protested against reason. He says anybody can be an apologist, just use the bible and nothing else. He says if you start using logic evidence from secular society, you give up God and make man the judge over God. I disagree with his approach.

I will object to that gay comment because the bible doesn't plainly teach homosexuality as a sin, otherwise, I would've believed it. I believe its not a sin and when I got saved and read my bible for the first time, I went to those verses since I believed gays went to hell (regardless they were nice people.) I then found out that wasn't the case sins the orientation wasn't condemned, so after studying the topic, I went from believing gay sex was a sin to gay sex was allowed in gay relationships as long as it didn't lead to pagan worship practices.

http://youtu.be...