What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

It makes me laugh a lot some of these replies such as "do not take my god in vain" and what not, it's just like come on, i'm sure there is some awful christian forum for you to all go tell each other some myths about "god"

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Actually no it isn't. Both commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Thusly neither is more logical.

Depends on which flavor of atheism about which you're asserting this.

reply to post by iterationzero


I like all of their flavors..... they all perform their sweet little favors.. I especially like them pinned to a tree.....oh baby!!! could it be me?? could it be? could it be?. but if deep calleth unto deep..... could it be He has found His one lost sheep? The only one for to trespass...and all because of her sweet little a$$.

Originally posted by HarryJoy
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I like all of their flavors..... they all perform their sweet little favors.. I especially like them pinned against a tree...since they only believe what they can see. but if deep calleth unto deep..... how else could he find His one lost sheep? The only one for whom He would trespass...and all because of her sweet little a$$.

This may well be the finest answer ever to one of the greatest questions of all time:

"What if Dr. Seus had written the bible?"

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I didn't say either claim was true, i was actually highlighting the argument from ignorance; because that user braught up exta-terrestrial civilisation on earth.....There's no evidence for that claim. I'm yet to find it after reading Richard Hoagland's reports, and many other charalatans involved with Project Camelot.

My question is - why is Atheism such a contemptable position when it comes from agnosticism?

....We don't know - we require evidence before with we believe, let alone subscribe to pre-written beliefs.

The Theist and the Atheist are both as naive as each other when it comes to the cause of reality... the meaning of life but the Theist asserts his "theory" and that's how we get organised religion; god knows how to live, how to behave, obey these objective laws;

Fortunately for the Atheist; the God's of ancient scripture are proving to be less than fit for a civil society in this modern time. That provides at least a little bit of leeway when it comes to debating the theist.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You wrote:

["Fortunately for the Atheist; the God's of ancient scripture are proving to be less than fit for a civil society in this modern time. That provides at least a little bit of leeway when it comes to debating the theist."]


I like your introduction of this very simplistic (but often looked down upon) component into the sophisticated and elaborate debate on the 'big existential questions'.

We can roam around in science, theology, philosophy, logic, general semantics, epistemology, source-validity-quibblings, debate tactics and whatever, but eventually a majority of mankind makes its decisions from rather run-of-the-mill daily concerns: Pragmatism.

I have, from my own (somtimes ivovy-tower) speculations on the universe and everything, tried to find an 'ultimate epistomological position', where SOME kind of general absolutes can be at least approached.

I have only found relative realities and approximate 'truths'. 50.000 + extremists having found 50.000 + different 'absolutes' is none of my concern, because mankind makes its final decisions down at the pub, at the hairdresser's or from considerations of their wallets or mating-possibilities.

I have no derogatory opinion of all the elevated positions, actually I love them; but at the end of the day they are just informed perspectives, until they become a part of humdrum-life (as when science via technology takes a practical part of our lives).

And in this context it's noticeable, that some theists recently have intensified their efforts of selling the product in a commercial slogan-way ("have a 1-to-1 with 'god"), rather than on their products' own merits.

reply to post by bogomil


My point is that inferring a "GOD" is a conjuring trick until you can a) prove god exists b) prove god is any one of the religious descriptions.

I enjoyed the recent "afterlife" Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, David Wolpe and Bradley Shavit Artson:-

Many of my frustrations are highlighted here both by Sam and Chris.

Here's the link

www.jewishtvnetwork.com...

reply to post by awake_and_aware


It was far from my intentions to criticize your posts, quite the contrary: I find it positive, that you added a dimension to a debate often being very 'specialist'.

PS For technical reasons I'm unable to look at web-videos.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

I didn't say either claim was true, i was actually highlighting the argument from ignorance; because that user braught up exta-terrestrial civilisation on earth.....There's no evidence for that claim. I'm yet to find it after reading Richard Hoagland's reports, and many other charalatans involved with Project Camelot.

If your going to call everyone working with project camelot a charlatan and say there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial civilisation of earth, then I am afraid our discussion is/was fruitless. I would accept no proof as satisfactory at this stage, but saying there is no evidence is A BIG STRETCH considering there are many people who have come forward and each person has his/her own "twist" added to the cache.

My question is - why is Atheism such a contemptable position when it comes from agnosticism?

You keep repeating yourself as though repetition of jargon will somehow make things right. Most people do not have a problem with agnostics, but they do have a problem with gnostic atheists and gnostic theists because both are hypocrites!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You keep repeating yourself as though repetition of jargon will somehow make things right. Most people do not have a problem with agnostics, but they do have a problem with gnostic atheists and gnostic theists because both are hypocrites!

Not the case; many Atheists are gnostic and rationally so when a defintion of God is proposed - Organised religion or Theism. I think it's quite obvious that these Gods DO NOT exist (or at least there's no evidence to propose that they do), God doesn't send punishment, God doesn't answer prayers.. it's evidence that these God's DO NOT intervene in human affairs and nothing so far as proved that so.

These God's are falsifiable, I believe it would be a lie to teach it to a child as truth. Religion or Theism can be falsified by mere deductive logic.

The God's of men; man cannot understand reality so he conjures up a "GOD" figure, an almighty figure. It comes in the form of vague half-baked philosophical fiction. That's exactly what it is, fiction.

In regards to a source/creator of the universe - I cannot know, and therefore i will suspend belief and judgement until i feel i am in a rational place to form a conviction (i.e. we have confirmed and undeniable evidence to prove it so)

I never said there was no evidence in regards to E.T life on Earth. I believe myself absense of evidence is not evidence of absense but so far no irrefutable proof has been found regarding E.T life. Maybe historians/archaeologists/astronomers may uncover some undeniable facts soon.

What my concern is on this forum is irrational pre-written beliefs. Beliefs that have been conjured by man throughout history, Invisible beings that are adorned in fear and amazement. The very men that write the scripture demand that they be worshipped and there laws obeyed. It's nonsense and a child can see through it.

double

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
God doesn't answer prayers..

Billions would disagree with this, and I would count myself among them.

Don't assume that, simply because you personally have not seen something, others have not. Particularly when the something in question is a matter of faith, and you've made it clear that you have none.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I attack atheists at times and believers at times. I think I would definitely support atheists more if I had a fundamental understanding of them, since I grew up Episcopalian (probably one of the better Christian sects from an atheist point of view, but still Christian) I have a hard time fully understanding and connecting with atheists, even though I would like to be one (agnostic or Eastern / spiritual to be more precise). Plus, I am in a small, conservative-controlled town at the moment.

(double post)

reply to post by darkbake

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I attack atheists at times and believers at times.

I appreciate the honesty.

I think I would definitely support atheists more if I had a fundamental understanding of them, since I grew up Episcopalian (probably one of the better Christian sects from an atheist point of view, but still Christian)

As a stand up comedian once put it "Catholic, but without all the guilt", this amused me even though I was still Catholic when I first heard it.

I have a hard time fully understanding and connecting with atheists, even though I would like to be one (agnostic or Eastern / spiritual to be more precise). Plus, I am in a small, conservative-controlled town at the moment.

Well, just ask some questions. What would you like to understand better? Feel free to u2u me if you wish.

reply to post by adjensen


Billions would disagree historically...for hundreds of different deities. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc all claim answered prayers or direct intervention from their deity following ritual.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong because they outnumber me. Where is the evidence of answered prayers?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am not a scientist but I do know that more-or-less ALL the theories evolve as we develop a better understanding of the universe and our enviroment.

Yes, they evolve. They aren't radically overturned very often.

We just moved out of the caves?

Yes. Yes we did.

Do you even know and understand the supposed stages of human evolution?

I understand the confirmed evidence of human evolution.

I don't buy that BS at all because nothing can evolve without genetic manipulation of the DNA which involves intelligent guidance/control.

Citation needed. You do realize that we have evidence of things evolving, right? There are the PCB resistant fish that are mentioned in another thread and were recently a news item. Nylon-eating bacteria are yet another example.

Humans of 10,000 bc are not the same humans of 2,000 bc which are also the exact same species of modern man.

Well, as a species they are all the same. In fact, the modern human species emerged around 200,000 years ago.

And the Lascaux cave paintings are around 17,000 years old.

The old testament and genesis speak of this but I am not sure how much stock we should put into it because like I said almost everything has been corrupted imo.

Or you could just not take stock in the tales of bronze age individuals who had no understanding of the universe.

And you do realize that we're still apes, right? Genetically, we're apes. Morphologically, we're apes. Which explains this better, evolution or creationism?

Wrong! Apes and humans share many similar characteristics but there DNA is slightly different from ours.

What? We are apes. We are in the "ape" family, Hominidae. Slight genetic differences are what differentiate species within a family.

Just out of curiousity do you realise that BigFoot's DNA is also close to our DNA with slight variations? In fact its more human-like than ape-like.

No such thing as Bigfoot DNA because nobody has found Bigfoot DNA.

Aka "I make things up"

No. I don't have an agenda like mainstream science does, so I say it like it is..or at least what I think is true!

AKA "I make things up because I don't trust the establishment even though 'mainstream science' is the most transparent practice in the world"

You have no evidence for your claims, science does.

Paganism = polytheism
Satanism = Oppositional Judeo-Christian monotheism.

I understand what paganism is and what satanism is. It is you that has a narrow point of view. Yes paganism is/was supposedly polytheism but many pagans did human and animal sacrifices in the name of "the god(s)" which was most likely satan.

...Jews did human and animal sacrifices to. Animal sacrifices aplenty. And Judges 11 recounts the sacrifice by Jephthah of his daughter.

Paganism predates Abrahamic religion.

Yes I already knew that! What makes you think I did not? When did I claim the opposite; please point it out to me with a specific quote if you dare. Since paganism predated abrahamic religions it also corrupted abrahamic relgions and that IS the point I have been trying to make all along! While many pagans were polytheists, many were actually satanists because earth is satanic territory. I am not rellying on the bible or any mainstream source for what I say, so obviously my conclusions will seem "off the mark" or "crazy". I like to read alternative material!

/end reactionary rant.

This 'alternative material' is also known as 'things people have just made up', something that they seem to have in common with you.

I have nothing against jews, christians or muslims other than all those religions are phoney because they are abrahamic religions! Do you get it now? Nice try painting me "anti-semitic" when I actually go to the anti-zionist bashing threads to support israel and zionism in general.

You do realize that I was referring to a specific text as being anti-semitic garbage. The Protocols have had their origins traced, and it isn't Jews.

[quote[
Do you? Talk is cheap and your beef is primarily against the christians who supposedly "bash" atheism, when in reality they are ten times more hateful towards jews and muslims.


Really? Studies tend to disagree.

Unless you seek alternative media, like me and others do, then you will remain in the twilight zone seeking answers to the wrong questions.

Alternative rarely, if ever, means right. It just means that it isn't rigorous, it's almost always badly produced, and it's almost always incoherent.

I spent a long time looking through alternative media, it fascinated me in my childhood and early teenage years...and then I realized it was crap.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Where is the evidence of answered prayers?

I have testified to you that it has happened to me, and, as we have discussed in the past, testimony is evidence, though it may not qualify as being sufficient to meet your evidentiary requirements. There are numerous studies of the positive value of prayer, particularly in healing, though no one is really sure why.

The difficulty of prayer, I suppose, is that God rarely gives us what we want, but he always gives us what we need. Too many people ask for "X", and when "Y" arrives instead, they assume that their prayer wasn't answered, but often times when we reflect afterwards, "Y" was better for us than "X".

Even, and think about this for a moment, even when "Y" is utter silence.

reply to post by adjensen



Funny, that god dickhead didn't give my 7 yr old cuz what he needed, no matter how much all the christians in the family prayed over him. He needed a donor for a transplant, and died before he got one.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by adjensen

 

Funny, that god dickhead didn't give my 7 yr old cuz what he needed, no matter how much all the christians in the family prayed over him. He needed a donor for a transplant, and died before he got one.

I am, sincerely, very sorry for your loss. And if you choose to blame God for it, you would not be the first to do so. As a person of faith, I struggle with the problem of pain -- but pain exists, whether God does, or God does not, but often times hope does not exist when God does not.

My wife died last March, and I could have been angry with God for not saving her, or I can be angry today that he does not do what I would want, to bring her back. Instead, I accept that I don't understand why she is gone, or why I am left to live with this terrible pain, every single day, and I accept the comfort that comes from my relationship with God as being what I need to continue to get through my life.

Again, my deepest sympathies on your loss.