Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism defined

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
My initial thoughts on the matter:

Since "theism" and "atheism" are blanket statements that refer to an individual's stance on a very generalized family of claims regarding the existence of a god (or gods), so it's pretty easy to assign them. However, strong atheism, being universally assertive, doesn't really work in regard to generalization; it's more a response to a specific claim. To explain, consider the following claims:

1. The God of the Bible exists.
2. Brahma exists.
3. Zeus exists.
4. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
5. A deistic god exists.
6. Some unknown god exists. (not necessarily deistic)

An individual has three possible logical stances (a trichotomy) in regard to each of these claims:

a. The claim is accepted as true.
b. The claim is accepted as false. (meaning that the negation of the claim is true.)
c. The claim is not accepted as either true or false.

A label of "theist" is accurate if an individual has adopted stance (a) on any claim that asserts the existence of a god (though some may debate that in regard to claim #5). So, obviously it's logically impossible to adopt this stance towards all claims, and since many claims are contradictory, this entail that such an individual adopts stance (b) towards many claims.

A label of "atheist" is accurate if an individual has not adopted stance (a) on any claim that asserts the existence of a god. This has absolutely no relevant as to what claims (if any) are actually regarded as false, because the positive stance (b) also logically entails not accepting the same claim as true. Thus, "strong" atheism is logically a subset of atheism.

Now, logically, a strong atheist is one who believes that no god exists and thus entails the adoption of stance (b) on all claims that assert the existence of a god, including all of the sample claims above as well as all of the claims of which the individual is ignorant. So, the generalized label of "strong atheist" is accurate if an individual has adopted a stance of (b) on ALL claims that assert the existence of a god.

Since the first two are not strong universal statements, they are logically conducive to reflect generalized stances and allowance for nuance. For this reason, it's not easily justifiable for the label of "strong atheist" to be applied in the same general sense that "theism" and "atheism" are, especially since few would ever positively deny the possible truth of claims #5 and #6. The general application of this label likely forces people who adopt this label to accept a more assertive position than they actually have. So, in the name of practicality, this term should be applied in regard to specific claims, while the corollary term, "atheism", reflects a more generalized position. So, I'd assume most atheists are "strong" towards claims #1-#4 (or all known non-deistic claims), but just 'atheist' in regard to #5-#6.

From the viewpoint of a theist, the identify of God is established, and so it's easy for them to see the label of "strong atheist" to be subject to general application and is really only attributable to that established notion. From the viewpoint of the atheist, however, the identify of God is not established, and so a generalized application of this term doesn't allow for the consideration of the diverse notions or claims of god.

-------------------------

Regarding agnosticism, I believe that this word should remain separate from matters of belief, being that "gnosis" is the Greek word for knowledge. The original meaning of this word was assertive, meaning that it was a belief that the certain matters (like a First Cause) were not only unknown, but unknowable. Meaning, no one could possibly know the answer. In any case, belief and knowledge (even though they're on the same spectrum) should not be conflated. Discerning the difference is a matter to be settled in the epistemological arena, though.

Agnosticism : 1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).
(http://www.etymonline.com...)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).

I will definitely be looking into this perspective. :)
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).
This would just be an agnostic then.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally. Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.
ken1122
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:51:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

I believe for an atheist to reject the existence of God without God being described is foolish. Many people worship things and beings that are real and can be demonstrated as real. Some worship Nature, the Sun, there is a sect in Hinduism that see Kumari as God, in Rastafarian, Halle Selassie is seen as God; these people are as real as you and I. ( Halle Selassie died in the 1970's but Kumari lives even today. Obviously the Sun and nature exist, but because I see Hallie, Kumari, and other people some choose to worship as regular people, and Nature and the Sun as natural, it would be foolish to say what these people call God doesn't exist, but because I don't call them God; because there is nothing that exist that I call God, I am atheist

Ken
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:37:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).
This would just be an agnostic then.

Agnostic is also part of Theological Cogntivism...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:54:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.

I have typically held the same, but I am leaning towards an outright dismissal of deistic/pantheistic/panentheistic gods also.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 4:58:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
If I call myself an atheist it makes it seems the focus is belief or disbelief in god, but that wouldn't be right. I don't "not believe in god" so much as believe in a universe that can be understood and explained in (to speak loosely) 'scientific terms' . My atheism is a consequence of that - atheism is not something I consciously adopted, it just along with my love of understanding how things really work.

When I was growing up my conversations with parents and school friends would be about exams, or money, or football, or girls but religion never got mentioned. I only truly realised I was an atheist at university when I realised there were people who took religion deadly seriously. I still find it hard to empathise with theists. I don't know how their minds work because I just can't take the idea of God or gods seriously. It is so obvious (to me) that it is a hold-over from our superstitious past that I don't get how anyone can fail to see it. Yet, they do. C'est la vie.

I don't make much distinction between theists and new-age hippies, believers in horoscopes or conspiracy theorists. They are all unable - or unwilling - to see the world as the marvellous mechanical kaleidoscope it really is. So what annoys me intensely being accused of not appreciating the sheer wonder of the world. I think scientists appreciate the world twice as well as non-scientists because scientists see the world as non-scientists do and also through the glass of their 'rationalism'. A scientist remains a human being, but not all humans are scientists. I wish they were.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 5:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:28:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).

I will definitely be looking into this perspective. :)

This is, essentially, my argument for Theological Noncognitivism:
P1) In order for a concept to be truth apt it must have Primary Attributes and be able to be Well-Defined.
P2) A limitless God cannot have Primary Attributes as Primary Attributes would limit said entity.
P3) A limitless God cannot be well defined (as KthulhuHimself says in his argument " it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator")
C1) The concept of a limitless God is not truth apt.
P4) If God is defined as a limited entity, then the term "god" becomes arbitrary (many reasons have been given in this thread alone as to why).
P5) An arbitrary label is not an objective description of a concept, and thus a "limited god" is not "god".
C2) God must be limitless.
C3) The concept of God is not truth apt.
P6) If the concept of god is not truth apt, theological noncogntivism entails.
C4) Theological noncognitvism entails.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 6:10:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 5:25:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:28:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).

I will definitely be looking into this perspective. :)

This is, essentially, my argument for Theological Noncognitivism:

Interesting.

P1) In order for a concept to be truth apt it must have Primary Attributes and be able to be Well-Defined.

Could you please define "Primary Attribute"?

P2) A limitless God cannot have Primary Attributes as Primary Attributes would limit said entity.
P3) A limitless God cannot be well defined (as KthulhuHimself says in his argument " it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator")
C1) The concept of a limitless God is not truth apt.
P4) If God is defined as a limited entity, then the term "god" becomes arbitrary (many reasons have been given in this thread alone as to why).

If the entity is unlimited, then why would the term "god" not be arbitrary, anyway?

P5) An arbitrary label is not an objective description of a concept, and thus a "limited god" is not "god".
C2) God must be limitless.
C3) The concept of God is not truth apt.
P6) If the concept of god is not truth apt, theological noncogntivism entails.
C4) Theological noncognitvism entails.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 7:04:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 6:10:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2016 5:25:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
This is, essentially, my argument for Theological Noncognitivism:

Interesting.

P1) In order for a concept to be truth apt it must have Primary Attributes and be able to be Well-Defined.

Could you please define "Primary Attribute"?

This site has the old/common argument for noncognitivism:
http://www.strongatheism.net...
It also will define the term there.

P2) A limitless God cannot have Primary Attributes as Primary Attributes would limit said entity.
P3) A limitless God cannot be well defined (as KthulhuHimself says in his argument " it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator")
C1) The concept of a limitless God is not truth apt.
P4) If God is defined as a limited entity, then the term "god" becomes arbitrary (many reasons have been given in this thread alone as to why).

If the entity is unlimited, then why would the term "god" not be arbitrary, anyway?

Not necessarily, as there is a quantifiable measure for what makes an entity "god".

P5) An arbitrary label is not an objective description of a concept, and thus a "limited god" is not "god".
C2) God must be limitless.
C3) The concept of God is not truth apt.
P6) If the concept of god is not truth apt, theological noncogntivism entails.
C4) Theological noncognitvism entails.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

IMSC, the term atheist was coined by theists who created the term in order to identify, label and ostracize those who didn't believe in their gods.

For the believer, their god exists, hence their lives are governed by the fact they believe this. They can't wrap their heads around the concept of a world without their god.

For the theist, they believe atheism is all about the rejection of their gods, and it stands to reason considering they're incapable of imagining or understanding a world void of gods. It's not logical for them to address arguments such as evolution that require one to conceive of such a world, even when it is the world in which they reside.

The entire concept of atheism, the disbelief, lack of belief or whatever, is a misnomer. We don't actually reject their gods or lack a belief in their gods, we simply look at the various claims they make involving the whole of their supernatural world whether it's gods, angels, demons, spiritual realm, etc., all we do is either validate or reject their claims based on the evidence they provide to support them, as opposed to not accepting or rejecting the entities they believe exist.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?
Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:42:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:52:18 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:37:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:26:23 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Most people define atheism in a way that anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, but this is something I disagree with.

I think that the first category breakdown is not between theism and atheism but between Theological Cogntitivism and Theological Noncognitivism.

Theism and atheism are subcategories of Theological Cognitivism.
If one is a Theological Noncognitivist then they are neither an atheist nor a theist (though, would probably identify as an atheist to the layman to make it easier).
This would just be an agnostic then.

Agnostic is also part of Theological Cogntivism...
How?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:43:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?
Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned
Not accepting your claim that gods exist is rebellion against what, exactly?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:52:58 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:43:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?
Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned
Not accepting your claim that gods exist is rebellion against what, exactly?
God himself. Leaving that state is very life changing. The people Iv seen cross that bridge have been able to overcome obstacles in their lives they just were not able to cross before. People pretending like there isn't a spiritual realm imo put themselves in some danger never really finding true satisfaction with life.
I'm not saying though some people are not satisfied living in this rebellious state, many are, theres just so much more to life once you realize this fact of life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 6:51:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:52:58 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:43:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?
Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned
Not accepting your claim that gods exist is rebellion against what, exactly?
God himself.
You mean your unprovable claim? Not really rebellion I'm sorry.
Leaving that state is very life changing. The people Iv seen cross that bridge have been able to overcome obstacles in their lives they just were not able to cross before. People pretending like there isn't a spiritual realm imo put themselves in some danger never really finding true satisfaction with life.
I'm not saying though some people are not satisfied living in this rebellious state, many are, theres just so much more to life once you realize this fact of life.
The only purpose the religious have is to die, I purpose myself to live and love it is so much more than you have.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 8:21:11 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.
Thanks for the thread, Skep! Whether I'm the member you were thinking about it's true that I identify as 'hard' atheist, and consider most theology not false, but invalid, by which I mean I think it has an effective epistemological status of 'gobbledygook'.

The reason I identify as 'hard' is that I cannot think of any evidence, no matter how whacky and mythological, that would make me want to identify it as the agency of a deity, and not something else, because I cannot see how an ascription of anything to the work of a god is not a sort of category error, and invalid.

So let me give a fanciful example to illustrate.

Suppose I were riding my bicycle through some pleasant parkland near my home, and saw light emanating from a bush. And suppose a booming voice started talking to me, telling me all manner of portentous information.

Okay, now what? I have an unexplained, unconfirmed phenomenon offering prediction. I'm science-trained, I love ontological surprises, and that's the sort of weird stuff I live for. Woohoo!

Yet the only conjectures I can test are for familiar ways to produce sound and light, and for the prediction being accurate or not. Suppose, after most thorough diligence, I cannot find familiar sources of sound and light, yet the phenomenon is repeatable and independently confirmable, and the predictions also come true. Then I simply have an unexplained phenomenon. I cannot say whether it's explainable in physical terms or not.

If Mr Bushburn became a regular feature in my life and its information proved reliable, I might use the information. But still, why worship its source? I don't worship meteorologists, radiologists or the guy who reads traffic information on the radio every morning. Why worship a remarkably prophetic burning bush? And what sort of prophetic burning bush would actually want that? Are we living in the Dark Ages here?

Suppose it tried to bully me into reverent subservience, threatening terrible consequences otherwise, and suppose it had been right in all its predictions previously. Is that more reason to worship it, or more reason to try to better understand it and learn how to neutralise it?

I'm reminded of a quote from former British politician Tony Benn:
In the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
[http://www.theguardian.com...]

Seriously, with everything we know about human history, who wants to return to a theocratic tyranny, whatever wondrous beings might be sponsoring it and trying to manipulate us?

So in short, I think there are two problems with most modern definitions of a god:
1) There's no way of testing whether an agency is metaphysical, even if it's wonderful; and
2) There's no moral reason to worship and submit to it, even if it were wise and powerful.

So even if such wonders were a regular occurrence (and they're nonexistent as far as best efforts can tell), I view these problems as unsolvable. There's no epistemological basis for ascribing a metaphysical nature to any phenomenon, and there's no moral basis for worship, however wonderful a being is. Befriending it? sure, if it's amiable and useful. But worshipping it? Nah. Obsequious submission to the powerful made sense when the world was full of empires and cruel tyrants, but with all we know about the corruption of power, who'd do it now?

Yet that's using the most extremely unlikely conjectures I can imagine. The reality is that our sense of truth is based on probability, which is in turn based on methodical observation, and we already have a vastly more probable explanation for human religiosity than that any claim to revelation or miracle is true, and that's simply that religion is a psychosocial effect.

That's the most impartial, well-tested, predictive and accurate baseline understanding for religious belief we have. If it were wrong, it'd be easy to show, simply by independently demonstrating how insightful revelation is about the vast information in our universe, or how efficacious prayer is in altering otherwise utterly predictable consequences.

And even the religious must believe that religion is a psychosocial effect, because otherwise, how do they explain the beliefs of the majority of people who don't uphold their beliefs?

Regardless, I'm happy to alter my baseline understanding of religiosity to something else given sufficient clinical evidence, but for some centuries, the reality has been that science predicts theology better than theology can predict or outperform science -- and religion had a head start on science of some 50,000 years to get its act together and impress us with revelations and prayers. A measly four centuries old, science has rolled religion in encounter after encounter like a pot roast, doing all the things religion said it could do, and more accountably -- even when religion said it was wrong.

So empirically, I view religion as invalid -- and I'm an empiricist happy to entertain claims of telepathy, precognition and past lives if the evidence is strong enough. And pragmatically, I feel we already understand quite well how religion propagates, and it has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with culture, and religion could easily falsify that by exhibiting very different behaviours to the ones it actually shows.

So I'm a hard atheist because there's no moral or practical reason to be anything else, and I view any other position as a sort of cultural trance where people jump out of the reality we have into a parallel mythological universe where they can ignore information we have here, and they're sure they can know stuff they cannot possibly know in ours.

That doesn't mean I necessarily want to change minds. I just really don't get why anyone concerned with knowledge and accountability would be anything else. In a pluralistic society, it seems virtuous to adopt an open mind, but as humourist and countryman Tim Minchin points out: if you open your mind too far, your brain will fall out.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?

Lets pretend I had a biological son that was given up for adoption at birth. I could have contacted him personally but chose not to. People that knew my biological son told him that all adoptees had a biological father that knew about them and could contact them but instead chose not to. The reason I chose not to is because I thought I believed it was sufficient for my biological son to hear third hand stories about me that were claimed to be attributed to me. I tell people that know me that I love my biological son but I will burn him alive if he does not acknowledge a relationship with me.

In this scenario, what would be the difference in my son rejecting a relationship with me and embracing a relationship with me?

In this story, it is communicated that god exists yet he merely chooses not to initiate any unquestionable communication. In reality, the allegedly all-powerful god could erase doubt yet chooses not to.

Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

If you had a daughter that was kidnapped, tortured and raped and she was crying out for her father to help her, would you just watch the ordeal or would you help her?

In reality, is there any effective difference between the women praying or not praying in the women that this happens to in real life? (the outcome is assumed to be the worst possible because that is many times reality)

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

I didn't realize the difference until after I said goodbye to religion. Before I said goodbye, nobody could have made me believe there would be such a difference. Other people that I know that have said goodbye to religion have told me the same happened to them.

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned

If you don't obey the rules and traditions in the Norse religions, the only people that would think you are in a state of rebellion are people that believe in Thor. Everyone else simply thinks you don't own a belief in Thor.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:49:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 6:51:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:52:58 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:43:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:36:20 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:57:46 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 1:46:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
This thread is meant for atheists and any who can constructively contribute. Let's try to keep this thread from nosediving into the land of insults and disrespect, please. Should we have any who ignore this request, I ask participants to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls, theyll come back for more!

I consider myself to be an atheist. It is true that I out reject god concepts that make no sense or that are demonstrably false (typically the gods of religion), but that in no way means I believe no god is possible or that no god exists. Ive seen atheists labeled as those who have a "belief" that no god exists, but that is typically wrong, imo.

That being said, I would like clarification on the "strong atheist" position. Up until recently, I have typically considered this to be an absolute (negative) belief on the existence of god, but I think I have been wrong. I know we have at least one in this forum who might be labeled as strong atheist, but I don't know that this person would say anything other than claims of god are invalid. I think most atheists would agree although, I admit, it's an opinion.

My purpose here is to have a discussion about properly defining "atheist" and the various atheistic positions including agnosticism. So, hopefully, it shouldn't be too hard to stay on topic!

When it comes to the theistic god that obsesses about possible human genital misuse and whispers to people what to write in a book and what to do, I am a hard atheist.

When it come to the deistic or pantheistic god, I am agnostic.
Im curious as to why you would be an atheist to the God who is involved and not to the god who isnt?

The evidence required for an interventionist god is intervention. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There were claims thousands of years ago of him parting seas and causing people to walk on water. Now, we just have questionable images in toast.

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?
Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned
Not accepting your claim that gods exist is rebellion against what, exactly?
God himself.
You mean your unprovable claim? Not really rebellion I'm sorry.
Unprovable? The many books of the bible, theier historicity, prophecies therein, Jesus himself. Feel free to challenge me to a debate on any of these topics whenever you wish.
Leaving that state is very life changing. The people Iv seen cross that bridge have been able to overcome obstacles in their lives they just were not able to cross before. People pretending like there isn't a spiritual realm imo put themselves in some danger never really finding true satisfaction with life.
I'm not saying though some people are not satisfied living in this rebellious state, many are, theres just so much more to life once you realize this fact of life.
The only purpose the religious have is to die, I purpose myself to live and love it is so much more than you have.
Not im Christianity. The purpose is to live for God and to live in a righteous and blameless way, to be humble, destroy your pride and seek truth. Everyone purposes themselves to live. You might as well argue everyone who is alive has a functional ciculatory system.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I will just add my personal viewpoint, for whatever it's worth. I have read literature from around the world regarding gods, goddesses, deities of every stripe and kind. In over half a century of existence on this planet I have never seen any single demonstration by any of these purported supernatural, some all powerful, beings. Given that, I reject any and all assertions of their existence pending presentation of one single fact that unambiguously supports any one of said assertions. Given the total lack of such facts, I am very confident that there will be none in the future but not totally certain. I use the term 'agnostic atheist' because I have rejected all current claims of the existence of any god, gods, or deities but cannot claim there are none. It's a relatively simple standpoint, the same as most people have of any claim that seems fantastic. As they say in Missouri, "Show Me".
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?

Lets pretend I had a biological son that was given up for adoption at birth. I could have contacted him personally but chose not to. People that knew my biological son told him that all adoptees had a biological father that knew about them and could contact them but instead chose not to. The reason I chose not to is because I thought I believed it was sufficient for my biological son to hear third hand stories about me that were claimed to be attributed to me. I tell people that know me that I love my biological son but I will burn him alive if he does not acknowledge a relationship with me.

In this scenario, what would be the difference in my son rejecting a relationship with me and embracing a relationship with me?
I actually dont understand the relationship to this scenario to an involved God. Christianity for example doesnt even work this way. So I have to ask again, what makes you special? Especially if in your example your biological son after hearing about you spent his whole life disrespecting you.

In this story, it is communicated that god exists yet he merely chooses not to initiate any unquestionable communication. In reality, the allegedly all-powerful god could erase doubt yet chooses not to.
We already have people who historically have had unquestionable communication. We listen to them. The prophets, the law givers, the apostles, various leaders and laymen that have been risen up because of their obedience.

Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

If you had a daughter that was kidnapped, tortured and raped and she was crying out for her father to help her, would you just watch the ordeal or would you help her?
The rapist get theirs trust me. In the bible for example several rape cases are followed by the destruction of entire citys.

In reality, is there any effective difference between the women praying or not praying in the women that this happens to in real life? (the outcome is assumed to be the worst possible because that is many times reality)
There of course can be, not every attempted rape happens. Humans on the earth to are able to do their own will and have freedom. This ends when God intervenes every single time. Is it really Gods fault the rapist turned away from god and acted on his own?

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

I didn't realize the difference until after I said goodbye to religion. Before I said goodbye, nobody could have made me believe there would be such a difference. Other people that I know that have said goodbye to religion have told me the same happened to them.
Like what though?

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned

If you don't obey the rules and traditions in the Norse religions, the only people that would think you are in a state of rebellion are people that believe in Thor. Everyone else simply thinks you don't own a belief in Thor.
Yea their god was real you know. The vikings are still a significant power today!
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:31:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 4:10:40 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:25:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:39:41 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:48:48 PM, matt8800 wrote:

A all powerful god that wants us to know about his existence and an all knowing god that knows how to speak English does not make sense since he has never spoken audibly to me personally.
I find it interesting you would list this as a reason. Why should God speak to those who are in a state of rejection?

Lets pretend I had a biological son that was given up for adoption at birth. I could have contacted him personally but chose not to. People that knew my biological son told him that all adoptees had a biological father that knew about them and could contact them but instead chose not to. The reason I chose not to is because I thought I believed it was sufficient for my biological son to hear third hand stories about me that were claimed to be attributed to me. I tell people that know me that I love my biological son but I will burn him alive if he does not acknowledge a relationship with me.

In this scenario, what would be the difference in my son rejecting a relationship with me and embracing a relationship with me?
I actually dont understand the relationship to this scenario to an involved God. Christianity for example doesnt even work this way. So I have to ask again, what makes you special? Especially if in your example your biological son after hearing about you spent his whole life disrespecting you.

Requesting evidence that an apparently imaginary person exists is not an inference that I'm special. If this was Thor we were talking about, I think you would agree with me.
In what way would my biological son, who I have never spoke to, disrespect me?

In this story, it is communicated that god exists yet he merely chooses not to initiate any unquestionable communication. In reality, the allegedly all-powerful god could erase doubt yet chooses not to.
We already have people who historically have had unquestionable communication. We listen to them. The prophets, the law givers, the apostles, various leaders and laymen that have been risen up because of their obedience.

Do you question the validity of Joseph Smith's claims of direct divine revelation? If so, they are not unquestionable. All we have to go on is their claims.

I knew a guy that believed God told him he would someday move a mountain simply by thinking it because that is what the bible says. I definitely don't consider that communication unquestionable but his fellow parishioners might.

Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

If you had a daughter that was kidnapped, tortured and raped and she was crying out for her father to help her, would you just watch the ordeal or would you help her?
The rapist get theirs trust me. In the bible for example several rape cases are followed by the destruction of entire citys.
Whether there is always justice or not is not an open and shut case.

I'm not sure why killing the children of the rapists' neighbors is considered a good thing.

In reality, is there any effective difference between the women praying or not praying in the women that this happens to in real life? (the outcome is assumed to be the worst possible because that is many times reality)
There of course can be, not every attempted rape happens. Humans on the earth to are able to do their own will and have freedom. This ends when God intervenes every single time. Is it really Gods fault the rapist turned away from god and acted on his own?

I'm thinking more of the experience of the girl getting raped and less of the free will of the rapist. When humans catch a rapist in the act, they stop it.

There is absolutely no difference between my life as a Christian who prayed and a secularist that does not pray with the exception of feeling like I own my own life and clearer thought. If there was an interventionist god, there would be a clear difference. No difference = nonexistence of intervention. Nonexistence of intervention = nonexistence of an interventionist god.

What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?

I didn't realize the difference until after I said goodbye to religion. Before I said goodbye, nobody could have made me believe there would be such a difference. Other people that I know that have said goodbye to religion have told me the same happened to them.
Like what though?
Its hard to explain. Its just a completely different perspective on the world. Maybe I could explain it better if I put a lot of thought into it.

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.

Well theres the many testimonials from people throughout history to this. That is the foundation of the claim. That's all any book out of the bible is and then theres many extra biblical sources as well. I personally have no desire for something to be true, in my own life Iv put my trust in Jesus and gotten results I couldn't pretend never happened. Sure life is easier living in a state of rebellion. But whats easy and right are hardly ever the same thing. Just something I have learned

If you don't obey the rules and traditions in the Norse religions, the only people that would think you are in a state of rebellion are people that believe in Thor. Everyone else simply thinks you don't own a belief in Thor.
Yea their god was real you know. The vikings are still a significant power today!

Christianity in a country has no correlation to power. Countries like Haiti and Zambia are far more Christian than the US. So are many other poverty stricken countries. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
We already have people who historically have had unquestionable communication"

Notice how the adjective "unquestionable" was inserted in there so the poster can think of himself as able to get away with the statement without having to prove anything.

The rapist get theirs trust me. In the bible for example several rape cases are followed by the destruction of entire citys.

A pearl of wisdom, this one. So individual X commits rape and individuals A,B,C,D,E,F,G....including children, are destroyed.
Yup, that fair alright.

I must remind myself that Bigotry thinks the mass rape of German women as young as 8 and as many times as sixty during the last days of WWII was the right thing to do. His vile despicable sense of justice fits right in, all cosy and what not, among Christian theology.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 7:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
In this scenario, what would be the difference in my son rejecting a relationship with me and embracing a relationship with me?
I actually dont understand the relationship to this scenario to an involved God. Christianity for example doesnt even work this way. So I have to ask again, what makes you special? Especially if in your example your biological son after hearing about you spent his whole life disrespecting you.

Requesting evidence that an apparently imaginary person exists is not an inference that I'm special. If this was Thor we were talking about, I think you would agree with me.
In what way would my biological son, who I have never spoke to, disrespect me?
Im not requesting any evidence, Im asking you why your special enough to have the God of the entire universe speak to you?
By not acknowledging who you are. Its always disrespecful to do that to anyone.


We already have people who historically have had unquestionable communication. We listen to them. The prophets, the law givers, the apostles, various leaders and laymen that have been risen up because of their obedience.

Do you question the validity of Joseph Smith's claims of direct divine revelation? If so, they are not unquestionable. All we have to go on is their claims.
Of course anyone os questionable but its the things that occured in and after their lifetimes that spawned Judaism and has kept it around for close to 3,000 years. They still to this day practice the passover. Its the investigation of these claims while matching it against history and archaeological finds that makes or breaks any historical testimoney. This is in part what brought Lee Stroble to Jesus for example. Or the sign that changed Constantine.

I knew a guy that believed God told him he would someday move a mountain simply by thinking it because that is what the bible says. I definitely don't consider that communication unquestionable but his fellow parishioners might.
The point of it was an amount of faith that isnt really humanley possible. Its something to aspire to and the point is that with enough faith one can accomplish the seemingly impossible.

Then you get into the problems of suffering and evil and it does not work with the idea of an all loving god. I have heard all the arguments for but none of them make sense.
I'm curious as to what the difference for a non involved God and an involved God is when it comes to suffering and evil existing and the God being all loving.

If you had a daughter that was kidnapped, tortured and raped and she was crying out for her father to help her, would you just watch the ordeal or would you help her?
The rapist get theirs trust me. In the bible for example several rape cases are followed by the destruction of entire citys.
Whether there is always justice or not is not an open and shut case.

I'm not sure why killing the children of the rapists' neighbors is considered a good thing.

Dont harbor a rapist. You still havent explained what makes these actions any less evil under an involed or not involved god.

In reality, is there any effective difference between the women praying or not praying in the women that this happens to in real life? (the outcome is assumed to be the worst possible because that is many times reality)
There of course can be, not every attempted rape happens. Humans on the earth to are able to do their own will and have freedom. This ends when God intervenes every single time. Is it really Gods fault the rapist turned away from god and acted on his own?

I'm thinking more of the experience of the girl getting raped and less of the free will of the rapist. When humans catch a rapist in the act, they stop it.
Humans are just tools for Gods usage. When they get far out of line history has more than shown what happens.


What was it about your previous submission to God that made you feel as though you didn't own your own life or be able to not have clear thought?


Like what though?
Its hard to explain. Its just a completely different perspective on the world. Maybe I could explain it better if I put a lot of thought into it.
If your ever to put it in writing let me know! The only percieved difference I would suspect is the same freedom Satan got when he rebelled against God. Now hes free to do whatever he wants to do.

When you dig into the foundation of the claims of the existence of a judging, interventionist god layer by layer, eventually one notices there is nothing at the bottom to hold the argument up other than desire for it to be true.


If you don't obey the rules and traditions in the Norse religions, the only people that would think you are in a state of rebellion are people that believe in Thor. Everyone else simply thinks you don't own a belief in Thor.
Yea their god was real you know. The vikings are still a significant power today!

Christianity in a country has no correlation to power. Countries like Haiti and Zambia are far more Christian than the US. So are many other poverty stricken countries. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The point wasnt about a relation to wealth it was to the point of existence. There isnt a worship thor movement and their whole society has collapsed under that theology. The Jews however are still around as are the Christians.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 9:08:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"I'm not sure why killing the children of the rapists' neighbors is considered a good thing.

Bigotry's reply:
"Dont harbor a rapist. "

So children , C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N, are to be held accountable and poay with their lives for the fact their parents didn't hand in or simply killed a rapist?
And that's supposed to be justice?

I'm at a loss for words.

The vile manure that this response constitutes, the nauseating stench of putrefaction that it gives, is a clear and vivid reminder why Christianity must be opposed. This reply is in complete harmony with Bigotry's other gut-wrenching contention, that mass raping German women as young as 8 andas many times as 60 in the last days of WWII was perfectly justified.

And this individual has the supreme gal, the nerve of a rascal to pontificate on morality. Bigotry, pardon my French, but just go get f*cked in the belly button, will you?