It takes a big pair to make the claim of atheism.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
That said, I'm not really looking forward to meeting the Old Testament God.

Lol, it's not the friendliest god you could choose to believe in, I'll agree there!

a reply to: TJames

Best post of the thread.

a reply to: TJames

I am not ready to throw out the usage and application of labels. I think they are very helpful and encourage debate. Trying to isolate certain meanings with certain words is a great educational experience.

Through this thread, I was educated that people who believe they are atheists simply means they have no personal proof. If proof is presented then they have the right to change their views. I just think that confuses things.

I just try to get a rise out of DFN but they usually win by simply ignoring me.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Labels spoil theistic debate in my opinion, they sidetrack from the real questions of does one believe there are gods or not, or does one believe there are no gods?
I go back to my elf example again. I don't believe or assert there are no elves sharing our world, I simply lack faith or belief that there are any, of course due to lack of evidence. I have the same stance with deities past or presently claimed.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: TJames

I just try to get a rise out of DFN but they usually win by simply ignoring me.

I don't rise much anymore without thought Viagra.

a reply to: TJames

Labels are often used in a negative way. For example, when you label a group of people you no longer have to treat them with any respect worthy of being human being. Many religions have the "chosen" people because religion is an organizing political force used by monarchs to justify the killing of other tribes in order to attain empire.

Labels are always used as a form of scapegoating in order to attain power. There are many evangelical religions more interested in power than salvation. Many religions love to scapegoat atheists because they are easy targets of derision. I would argue there are many religions that cannot exist without a persecution complex. So people who do not agree with their beliefs are perceived as enemies. So atheists are often scapegoated as persecuting the Christians by the Christians. Although many atheists may believe religion is responsible for a lot of the violence we have in the world, this is not the primary pillar of what it means to be an atheist.

I think when people argue against or are not accepting of the way other people think it shows a lack of confidence in their own way of thinking.

If I were going to author my own religion, it would be one without labels, without sin, and have a God of infinite love and forgiveness who did not participate in the affairs of men. And everyone is equal in the eyes of God regardless of your birth, money, or privilege. But there's no money in this type of religion. People want a religion they root for like an NFL football team. We can't all be Dominionists!

dfnj2015, how do you tell an atheist from a theist?

(No, this is not a joke )

a reply to: dfnj2015

See if I got this right.


Lack of evidence + Lack of faith = Atheism

Not

Atheism = A lack of faith x 0 evidence

The example that shows atheism resulting in the equasion is
representative of a conclusion and therefore the more correct
definition? As opposed to atheism being a preconceived idea?

And this

People want a religion they root for like an NFL football team.

is just below you.

originally posted by: TJames

originally posted by: dfnj2015
That said, I'm not really looking forward to meeting the Old Testament God.

Lol, it's not the friendliest god you could choose to believe in, I'll agree there!

Probably Howard's inspiration for Crom:

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Well, we've argue what it means to be an atheist to death. Essentially, to be an atheist, you have a lack of belief in God. The reason for this that I have heard most often is there is no objective evidence for the existence of God. And since there is no objective evidence, therefore, everything about God is imaginary delusion.

To be theist is a much more difficult position to argue rationally. I would argue having a belief in God is a choice and not a decision. Decisions have reasons. Being theist means you are choosing to belief in God based on faith. And although it may be based on imaginary delusion, and there is no objective evidence, a theist is CHOOSING to believe in God for important reasons. Choosing to believe in God provides a context in which to live a meaningful life where you might not have it otherwise.

Choosing to believe in God may be pure delusion. But what difference does it make on the cosmic scale. Nietzsche believed everything is meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So if it's all meaningless, then, you might as well choose MEANINGFUL instead. Although, Nietzsche has really strong arguments about the bad psychological effects of Christianity, and his vision of the Uber man is interesting, I find his way of looking at life too depressing.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: dfnj2015

See if I got this right.


Lack of evidence + Lack of faith = Atheism

Not

Atheism = A lack of faith x 0 evidence

The example that shows atheism resulting in the equasion is
representative of a conclusion and therefore the more correct
definition? As opposed to atheism being a preconceived idea?

Normally multiplication means multiple additions so I'm not sure what you are saying. I'll just assume you mean addition and not multiplication of beliefs.

Atheism = a lack of belief in God or gods (for whatever reasons)

Atheist: Zero never equals Infinity, no evidence is meaningful, no acceptable evidence for the existence of God or gods

Theist: Zero equals Infinity, no evidence is meaningless, all of existence is evidence for the existence of God

a reply to: intrepid

Speaking of Crom:



"Another day, walking in circles, haunted by memories, I push on this wheel"

This is probably one the very most profound things ever written by man.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: dfnj2015

RE: People want a religion they root for like an NFL football team

is just below you.

I missed this comment the first time.

Yeah, the truth hurts. I do not see myself above anyone else.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Well, we've argue what it means to be an atheist to death. Essentially, to be an atheist, you have a lack of belief in God. The reason for this that I have heard most often is there is no objective evidence for the existence of God. And since there is no objective evidence, therefore, everything about God is imaginary delusion.

What is subjective evidence? Does it exist?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
To be theist is a much more difficult position to argue rationally. I would argue having a belief in God is a choice and not a decision. Decisions have reasons. Being theist means you are choosing to belief in God based on faith. And although it may be based on imaginary delusion, and there is no objective evidence, a theist is CHOOSING to believe in God for important reasons. Choosing to believe in God provides a context in which to live a meaningful life where you might not have it otherwise.

You were clear, you said believing in God is impossible cause everything about God is imaginary delusion. Am I missing something here?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Choosing to believe in God may be pure delusion. But what difference does it make on the cosmic scale. Nietzsche believed everything is meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So if it's all meaningless, then, you might as well choose MEANINGFUL instead. Although, Nietzsche has really strong arguments about the bad psychological effects of Christianity, and his vision of the Uber man is interesting, I find his way of looking at life too depressing.

After considering all your posts in this thread, I don't believe you're playing very nice here.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: dfnj2015

RE: People want a religion they root for like an NFL football team

is just below you.

I missed this comment the first time.

Yeah, the truth hurts. I do not see myself above anyone else.

I don't know, it sure doesn't mean you aren't either.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah, the truth hurts. I do not see myself above anyone else.

I meant the statement is least accurate in comparison to most
of what you've posted.

That's all.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Well if you want to get all philosophical we can bring n fellow German Heidegger. We might not even exist. All this might be a construct of my "being"or lack thereof.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I think you're over complicating this. I'm an "atheist" when it comes to the ancient Egyptian, Nordic, Roman, Japanese Shinto, and Hindu pantheons. It simply means I don't believe their characters/deities exist. I don't have to study and refute any of their stories or scriptures in order to not believe they're real. I simply look around and see/hear/smell/taste no examples of Thor or Ravana's existence.

That's how other atheists are when it comes to Abrahamic religions. They simply don't believe our deity exists. The burden of proof isn't on them either. It would be on the people who are trying to get them to believe in something they can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch. I'm a proud Muslim but I openly admit that I have zero proof of God's existence. So it's not strange or bold to me if someone simply doesn't accept the existence of beings or a deity that they can't sense.

People who come with a religions and say their religion is a correct representation about creation on all levels and have the right objective definitions have to back up their claim.

Abrahamic religions are very bad at defining the holy spirit and use the excuse god works in mysterious ways. Where Abrahamic religions show ignorance, instead of knowing other spiritual models can explain energetic body bliss state and synchronicity to a great detail without the need of faith dogma and the models can be tested by each soul.

It is not so hard to acknowledge psi/telepathy if any quanta point of creation can be connected to anther point in creation thru entanglement. And when you can see how psi/telepathy is implemented then out of body and near death experience is not hard to understand.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Well, we've argue what it means to be an atheist to death. Essentially, to be an atheist, you have a lack of belief in God. The reason for this that I have heard most often is there is no objective evidence for the existence of God. And since there is no objective evidence, therefore, everything about God is imaginary delusion.

What is subjective evidence? Does it exist?

Someone who claims God exists because of a particular experience or experiences is subjective. Objective experience would be me holding an apple in my hand. We both look at it and say "apple". The problem with God experiences is the people who claim it to be a God experience seem to be the only ones who think so.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: dfnj2015
To be theist is a much more difficult position to argue rationally. I would argue having a belief in God is a choice and not a decision. Decisions have reasons. Being theist means you are choosing to belief in God based on faith. And although it may be based on imaginary delusion, and there is no objective evidence, a theist is CHOOSING to believe in God for important reasons. Choosing to believe in God provides a context in which to live a meaningful life where you might not have it otherwise.

You were clear, you said believing in God is impossible cause everything about God is imaginary delusion. Am I missing something here?

I never said believing in God is impossible. I said without any objective evidence for the existence of God then the only evidence we have is people claiming their experiences are God experiences. If we do not have objective evidence for God's existence then all we have is the stuff that only exists in our imaginations.

What is your evidence for the existence of God?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Choosing to believe in God may be pure delusion. But what difference does it make on the cosmic scale. Nietzsche believed everything is meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So if it's all meaningless, then, you might as well choose MEANINGFUL instead. Although, Nietzsche has really strong arguments about the bad psychological effects of Christianity, and his vision of the Uber man is interesting, I find his way of looking at life too depressing.

After considering all your posts in this thread, I don't believe you're playing very nice here.

I am playing nice. I've been very consistent. You don't have to be an atheist or even like atheism to appreciate they have a very logical, neat, and precise way of thinking. Atheism is based on a simple principle. If you don't have evidence for the existence of something then that thing does not exist. What is wrong with that way of thinking? It's very logical.