Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Originally posted by Annee

I think there is no god and so do you, folks. What’s wrong with that? I don’t get it.

edit on 11-6-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

It's not even necessary to do, but switch the word think with the word believe

And it's what I've said all along.

Actually, if you consider what he said prior to that, it really sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

reply to post by satron


There is a fine line between: "Lack of Belief in a god/deity" - - - and "I do not believe in god". But there is a line.

There is an explanation - - which I'm not going to bother with any more. Its too infinitesimal in importance to waste time on.

I prefer "Lack of Belief in a god/deity". This is the current and correct definition according to American Atheists.

End of discussion.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by satron

 

There is a fine line between: "Lack of Belief in a god/deity" - - - and "I do not believe in god". But there is a line.

There is an explanation - - which I'm not going to bother with any more. Its too infinitesimal in importance to waste time on.

I prefer "Lack of Belief in a god/deity". This is the current and correct definition according to American Atheists.

End of discussion.

Saying you have a lack in belief either way about the existence of God even when you've been exposed to the idea of God is to be just as much caught up in willful ignorance as the theists whose beliefs they find beyond reproach yet you criticize.

You guys have something in common, but I don't think it would be a good question to match people up with on a dating site.

Originally posted by satron

Saying you have a lack in belief either way about the existence of God . . .

Its nit-picky semantics just for argument sake - - - and I don't do that.

End of discussion on this subject. Or did you miss that part?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron

Saying you have a lack in belief either way about the existence of God . . .

Its nit-picky semantics just for argument sake - - - and I don't do that.

End of discussion on this subject. Or did you miss that part?

It's not really nit-picking because there are bigger implications to it, like people and inanimate objects having the same mind. It violates cause and effect. If you're brain can be in the same state it was before the concept of God was told to you, then it's like the concept was never told to you at all. It's like saying that a boulder is gunning down to run someone over, but the person "decides" that they don't wan it to so it stops right as it touches them and they didn't even feel it, because it didn't happen.

What an illogical world that could open up. Better to nip it in the bud.

Originally posted by satron

What an illogical world that could open up.

My first memories are OBEs (out of body experiences). Experiences of leaving the physical body and going to a place without form. Experiences that can't be known to anyone who has not had them. In one OBE - - a tall man in a white robe came to me. He told me I was trying to live in two worlds and that I was too young (age 5) to understand. He said I was trying to return to the spirit world - but that I had to stay in the physical world. I was allowed to keep this memory - - but remember very few OBEs after that. I suspect they were blocked.

Then man tried to teach me about God. I tried to apply it to my experiences. I tried to make it fit. It did not feel right. It just was not the same thing.

I went on a many year quest to make it fit - - to find proof of the Jesus story. There isn't any. The real historical facts don't match up with the myth.

So Yes! I do know there is something beyond what we know as the physical world. But - what is it?

For me science makes sense. Energy evolved into consciousness makes sense. The Creator a natural phenomenon of evolution which began with already existing natural elements.

The label God is man made - - also tainted and corrupted by man. It is a label I will not recognize.

So - there you have it. "God" would actually corrupt my original experiences - - that came before mortal man's intrusion.

Originally posted by satron

Atheism isn't about non-belief. Atheism is BELIEF that God doesn't exist.

You wishing that was the case does not make it so.

If you had never been exposed to the concept of god, and have not developed it yourself spontaneously, then you are an atheist - you do not believe that god exists.

The term for never having known of the concept of god and therefore not believing in god is implicit atheism - it is different from explicit atheism (see the same link) in that it is not conscious -

the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it

so new born children are all implicit atheists by virtue of not consciously knowing anything about god(s), therefore not believing in s/he/it/them.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron

Saying you have a lack in belief either way about the existence of God . . .

Its nit-picky semantics just for argument sake - - - and I don't do that.

End of discussion on this subject. Or did you miss that part?

I wouldn't necessarily call it nit-picky semantics. Bertrand Russell was keen enough to realize Atheist was an affirmation of the negative and thus either self-refuting or grossly illogical and promptly dropped the title "Atheist" in favor if the term "Agnostic". It's impossible to prove God doesnt exist without the attributes of God Himself, however it's simple to prove that you don't know.

Even though I disagree with Russell's conclusion, we can all respect his mental faculties.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Wishing? No, it's Greek. "A" is alpha, the negative. "Theos" is God or deity. Atheos (atheist) means :

"Negative/no/without God/deity" or basically = no such thing as God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I wouldn't necessarily call it nit-picky semantics. Bertrand Russell was keen enough to realize Atheist was an affirmation of the negative and thus either self-refuting or grossly illogical and promptly dropped the title "Atheist" in favor if the term "Agnostic". It's impossible to prove God doesnt exist without the attributes of God Himself, however it's simple to prove that you don't know.

Even though I disagree with Russell's conclusion, we can all respect his mental faculties.

atheism as a belief that god does not exist can be adequately justified by the absence of evidence - proof is not required.

the inability to prove a negative, especuially in such an unlimited case, is the refuge of the ignorant - by the same token it is also impossible to prove the existence of the infinite and so there can be no such thing as belief in god.

But clearly people do believe god(s) exist, aother other people beleive god(s) do not exist.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Bertrand Russell was keen enough to realize Atheist was an affirmation of the negative and thus either self-refuting or grossly illogical and promptly dropped the title "Atheist" in favor if the term "Agnostic".

What is Agnosticism?

In other words: God can not be proven or dis-proven

As I have stated several times. Every true Atheist is also Agnostic - - - because a true Atheist must admit: "God can not be proven or dis-proven"

What is Agnosticism?

Agnosticism is a recent concept, introduced by Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to describe his own concerns about knowledge and belief.

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

In this characterization, which we can take as authoritative, there is no mention of belief in general or of religion in particular. Rather, it addresses what we should and can claim to know. It is akin to skepticism in the less extreme sense: not that it is impossible to have knowledge or that we have none but that we should not claim to have knowledge that we do not have.

atheists.org...

Here is what Bertrand Russell actually states:

"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God."

atheismexposed.tripod.com...

reply to post by Annee


Lol, yes, I'm very familiar with what he said. Atheist s a position that's intellectually dishonest to hold author t the attributes of God Himself. Agnostic is infinitely easier a position to defend.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I wouldn't necessarily call it nit-picky semantics. Bertrand Russell was keen enough to realize Atheist was an affirmation of the negative and thus either self-refuting or grossly illogical and promptly dropped the title "Atheist" in favor if the term "Agnostic". It's impossible to prove God doesnt exist without the attributes of God Himself, however it's simple to prove that you don't know.

Even though I disagree with Russell's conclusion, we can all respect his mental faculties.

atheism as a belief that god does not exist can be adequately justified by the absence of evidence - proof is not required.

the inability to prove a negative, especuially in such an unlimited case, is the refuge of the ignorant - by the same token it is also impossible to prove the existence of the infinite and so there can be no such thing as belief in god.

But clearly people do believe god(s) exist, aother other people beleive god(s) do not exist.

But it only takes 1 simple bit of evidence to believe in God and the attributes of God Himself to have faith in the negative position... that's the monumental difference.

reply to post by HumanCondition

Well its ok for you to believe it but don't tell others its true when you know its just a fairy tale.

Fairy tales do not come true. What was prophecied in the bible 2500-3000 years ago is coming to pass today. The tombs of the apostles are being discovered. Mt Sinai and Mt. Horeb have been discovered with archaological proof what was written of did happen. The only delusion is the one you're under that was also prophecied of and no matter how hard we try to warn you people you won't believe, this too was also prophecied to happen.

Enjoy your denial.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Annee

 

Lol, yes, I'm very familiar with what he said. Atheist s a position that's intellectually dishonest to hold author t the attributes of God Himself. Agnostic is infinitely easier a position to defend.

Uh huh.

Yes - - I'm fully aware of your "selective" quoting.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by HumanCondition

 

Well its ok for you to believe it but don't tell others its true when you know its just a fairy tale.

Fairy tales do not come true. What was prophecied in the bible 2500-3000 years ago is coming to pass today. The tombs of the apostles are being discovered. Mt Sinai and Mt. Horeb have been discovered with archaological proof what was written of did happen.

which prohecies are coming to pass?

What tombs of the apostles? Mt Horeb & Mt Sinai are 2 peaks of the same mountain & are often considered the same place - eg the Hebrew bible states that the commandments were given to Moses on Horeb, not Sinai.

And since there is still debate on the location of the biblical Sinai/Horeb (yes, even among religious scholars), if you can positively identify any location as being them then you will be a world leader in the field!

Christians thought Mt Serbal was Mt Sinai in hte 4th century, but Josephus said that Mt Sinai was the tallest mountain - which would be Mt Catherine, and so they thought that for a while too, only shifting to the "current" Mt Sinai in the 6th centure CE. Bedouin tradition has it as Jabal Musa. Other mountains in hte Sinai Penisular considered to be it by various people include Sin Bishar, Hashim el-Tarif and Mt Helal.

and then there's the theories that it lies in the Negev or in Saudi Arabia.

So I'd be most interested in any positive identification of its site - as would much of the world!

The Sinai Peninsular is named after the most commonly held x-ian tradition - that Mt Sinai is in it, not because the mountain has been positively identified with the biblical one.

The only delusion is the one you're under that was also prophecied of and no matter how hard we try to warn you people you won't believe, this too was also prophecied to happen.

yeah - nice circular ad hominem in advance there - Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” - get that sucker punch in in advance, make it rely upon the authority of the book that it is in, then use it as part of the justification for believing that book.

Enjoy your denial.

not that I need your permission to do so, but I do, I shall, and thank you for your good wishes

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But it only takes 1 simple bit of evidence to believe in God and the attributes of God Himself to have faith in the negative position... that's the monumental difference.

Says you.

But you are not being honest.

You say a theist can believe god exists based on 1 piece of evidence, but you deny an atheist the ability to believe that god does not exist based upon lack of evidence.

In fact what you say requires the atttributes of god is KNOWLEDGE that does not exist - not belief.

I'm pretty sure being dishonest in this manner is considered a sin - so perhaps you should seek forgiveness and enlightenment!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

which prohecies are coming to pass?

I'll try one. the return of Israel as a nation after its people suffered 2000 years of exile, in which they maintained their identity and faith despite almost constant persecution wherever they went. this is unprecedented in human history.
this is either Bible prophecy coming true, or a unique and (otherwise) inexplicable event.

reply to post by works4dhs


You forget a possibility - it isn't true

and of course it also isn't unique for "a people" to become a country after centuries of rule or domination by others, even if it had been independant at various times in hte distant past.