Have Atheists Given Up Here?

Originally posted by jiggerj


No no no, I am objective when discussing religion with those that use their minds. The fanatics are a whole different animal.

There are fanatics on both sides. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

You can call me whatever you want if that is your prerogative, but I know what I am not more so than what I am. I am not an atheist. If I accept the label 'atheist' I am immediately bestowed with all baggage that word comes with. It's a label Christians once had—more than enough reason to refuse the label in the first place.

You don't believe in god/s, you're an atheist, regardless on how you feel about it. Any baggage is directly due to theists (mainly Christians) ostracising and alienating anyone not in their gang. But if you feel intimidated enough by them to hide your position, I understand.

Atheist means (from the greek word atheos) 'without God.' How can one be without something that never existed in the first place? It boggles my mind.

It's the rejection of claims made by theists, that's it. The fact this word is even needed is what should be boggling your mind. I mean, do we have words for not-stamp-collecting?

Secondly, arguing about something that doesn't exist is absurd, for there is no point. Aren't we supposed to free ourselves from such dogmatism?

As I explained, the folk who do believe such nonsense cause a lot of issues for those who do not, serious issues. If you want to bury your head in the sand and feel smug about not having any integrity or an opinion, well that's your prerogative.

Third, God does exist—at the very least, or the very most, as a word, an ideal and a concept. To deny that is self-deception.

This is such an asinine sentence I nearly didn't respond to it. I'll just say by you're fallacious logic everything and anything exists......

Fourth, to denounce God, which any honest atheist should realize is an ideal, and immediately turn around and put faith in another ideal—namely 'no god'—is contradictory. In this case, if you are an atheist, you are no different than a theist. Same goes for agnosticism. To excuse one faith for another faith—that faith being 'we cannot know'—is no different.

Faith is believing something is true despite there being no evidence to do so, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. To reject a faith-based position due to the lack of evidence or reason on offer doesn't quantify you as having a 'faith'. This argument is usually proliferated by those of faith, 'it takes more faith not to believe' despite it not making any sense whatsoever and actually demonstrates just how ridiculous their position is.

Fifth, the only difference between an atheist and a theist is the time-period in which they cherry pick their doctrines. A reliance is put on the credibility of their chosen literature's authors, rather than examine the evidence themselves. This is a completely religious motivation known as faith.

As I explained, being an atheist means you merely reject the claims made by theists. That's it. Any other beliefs or lack thereof are entirely besides the point are are determined by the individual. I most likely have nothing whatsoever in common with other atheists here on ATS other than my rejection of the claims made by theists.

People kill, fight, and argue over their ideals—their Gods. The atheist is no different. Why not continue further and denounce atheism? Why not denounce any 'ism' and forge your own?

Again complete nonsense. No-one has ever killed, raped, or massacred anyone due to their rejection of the claims made by theists. And there's no such thing as 'atheism', it's not an 'ism', it has no doctrines, no dogma, no leaders. The only thing required to be described as an atheist.......is the rejection of claims made by theists (i.e there's a God!).

reply to [url= by darkhorserider[/url]


A collection old wife's tales, superstitions, hearsay and folklore? Its been proven 'scientifically' that cats have psychic powers? a source for that claim must be given as I haven't yet come across such world changing news.

You 'know' you have a personal relationship with a 'spiritual creator'? that you somehow also 'know' exists outside of the physical realm (as opposed to?)

And the Spooklight? even if the name wasn't enough to put me off, everything ive found about such a claim has described it as the passing of cars on a distant highway.

A large post filled with incredible claims, but not a single reason to even suspect they are true other than you 'know'. Personal testimony doesn't cut it, as we know people lie, have delusions and like to make themselves feel special.

And I get it, the thought that we are all short-haired apes living alone on a moss covered rock floating around and around in the cold void is slightly unnerving and to some it might be inconceivable. But what we want to be true, what we would love to be true, makes no difference to what actually is true. And if the thought of being special in this lethal universe helps you sleep better at night, then I'm very glad.

You just can't expect anyone, ever, to believe you just because you claim it to be true. You're word isn't enough for such extraordinary claims, you need evidence, extraordinary evidence.

Otherwise you just sound like a crazy person.

reply to post by Prezbo369

This is such an asinine sentence I nearly didn't respond to it. I'll just say by you're fallacious logic everything and anything exists......

I suppose an asinine sentence requires an asinine response.

Fallacious logic? So the word God doesn't represent an idea? Is this what you're trying to tell me? And religions don't worship this idea? See that kind of skirting of the facts is found in all theistic motivations. If you wish to be intellectually lazy then by all means, forget such a fact—one the theist and atheist should agree on. But as a self proclaimed 'atheist'—a word you feel describes you as if you were some product of an assembly line and a word that carries with it thousands of years of shame—you take it as a label merely because other people take it. You feel proud of it because other people feel proud of it. And then you argue in its name—not for yourself—but for the label 'atheism.' Your very reply is an example of this. Does the label need your defending? I bet if people were still burned at the stake for the label you wouldn't so easily put it on yourself. But you do, why is that?

God is a word—it's in the dictionary. A word represents an idea. My use of it in any sentence presupposes the word God has a meaning. The atheist and theist use this word and the word's meaning to form his arguments. 'God exists' is an ideal—it satisfies one's conception of what is most suitable. 'Gods do not exist' is another ideal. Are you able to deny this?

If God didn't exist as an idea, how the hell would anyone form an argument with it? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever had to explain.

You can call me an atheist yet you know nothing about me. That is entirely typical and predictable way of thinking found only in the most religious of people.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by darkhorserider[/url]

 

A collection old wife's tales, superstitions, hearsay and folklore? Its been proven 'scientifically' that cats have psychic powers? a source for that claim must be given as I haven't yet come across such world changing news.

You 'know' you have a personal relationship with a 'spiritual creator'? that you somehow also 'know' exists outside of the physical realm (as opposed to?)

And the Spooklight? even if the name wasn't enough to put me off, everything ive found about such a claim has described it as the passing of cars on a distant highway.

Well, this thread isn't about the Spooklight, but if you give it just a basic search, you will find that all the theories of passing car lights were debunked multiple times. It certainly is not passing car lights, and I've personally been within a few feet of it, and it is a tangible entity, not a reflection.

My relationship with the Creator cannot be explained thoroughly, and it is likely unique for each person. If you don't have one, then I am sorry, but I suggest you spend the remainder of your life attempting to create that relationship. Not with a church, but with the actual creator.

A large post filled with incredible claims, but not a single reason to even suspect they are true other than you 'know'. Personal testimony doesn't cut it, as we know people lie, have delusions and like to make themselves feel special.

And I get it, the thought that we are all short-haired apes living alone on a moss covered rock floating around and around in the cold void is slightly unnerving and to some it might be inconceivable. But what we want to be true, what we would love to be true, makes no difference to what actually is true. And if the thought of being special in this lethal universe helps you sleep better at night, then I'm very glad.

You just can't expect anyone, ever, to believe you just because you claim it to be true. You're word isn't enough for such extraordinary claims, you need evidence, extraordinary evidence.

Otherwise you just sound like a crazy person.

No, the thought of just being an ape on a rock makes me sociopathic. If that is the truth, and there was nothing before, and will be nothing after, then we are wasting a lot of our time conforming to societal norms and limiting our actions here. We should just give in to our "id" and live like animals, may the strongest survive, and breed, and hoard all the resources. I'm perfectly fine with that, in fact, every fiber of my being tells me that is the more natural way. I already struggle to conform and limit my appetites, but luckily I have a spiritual guidance that keeps me somewhat civil 90% of the time.

To me, the crazy person concept, is the concept of living within this societal structure that is counter-intuitive to our nature, and also calling one's self an atheist? How can those two things co-exist? If you are an atheist, what are you doing wasting your time on things like monogamy and speed limits?

reply to post by Wonders

like a child banging on a fish tank

An interesting way to describe atheists and evolutionists that get off on attacking Christians.

It's true, even if inside the tank is a great white shark

Attacking and belittling a message of truth has consequences, not from the Christians themselves, but from the one they have faith in. God will not be mocked by disbelievers forever, he is just giving people the maximum time to pick their side.
So that shark your antagonizing in the fish tank, he can't do anything about it, BUT he has friends and they know

reply to post by jiggerj




How many times can you argue the same crap with the same people?

And not only the same people... once you have had your debate, showed why believing in god (or not) is ridiculous, some idiot goes and asks the exact same question or starts the exact same thread.

It's just boring.


People who believe are gonna believe.... whatever.

People who don't even entertain the idea or couldn't give a crap, are probably gonna stay that way too.

Unless the holy spirit comes and touches them, although I'm sure we have laws these days against such things.

reply to LesMisanthrope


Well you've gone from an asinine sentence to an asinine post...

If you're obviously not going to bother replying to all the points made in my post (as I did yours) but focus on one singular sentence that seems to have gotten your heckles up and then surround it with a forest of straw-men, we're done.

'God is a word, words exist, therefore god exists'

reply to [url= by darkhorserider[/url]


Apes live in incredibly complex social groups, ones in which such erratic and destructive behaviour would see the offending primate ostracised before being cast out and banished. Surviving in a group is much easier than surviving alone.

That being said if you don't posses such attributes then for your own sake and of those around you, please continue to hold the world view you do, just don't expect anyone to believe you until you can provide evidence for your claims.

reply to post by Xaphan


Repent of your blasphemies,

You've been warned,

We love you

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Wonders

 

like a child banging on a fish tank

An interesting way to describe atheists and evolutionists that get off on attacking Christians.

It's true, even if inside the tank is a great white shark

Attacking and belittling a message of truth has consequences, not from the Christians themselves, but from the one they have faith in. God will not be mocked by disbelievers forever, he is just giving people the maximum time to pick their side.
So that shark your antagonizing in the fish tank, he can't do anything about it, BUT he has friends and they know

edit on 16-11-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Well, that's good for the shark then.
I know someone who reads the bible aloud to adults like we're at storytime at the library, can you do that too?
Seriously though, you are absolutely right about God giving people an allotted amount of time before they get cut off.

reply to post by Wonders

I suppose this thread is evidence of jigger's awesome ability to think critically, logically and BY HIMSELF?

No, this thread is evidence that I'm human and driven by emotions (sometimes playful, sometimes serious, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes compassionate...). What I am NOT, however, is a mindless brain that's been programmed to spew unfounded, unverifiable, and sometimes downright idiotic passages from a religious text.

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Call me pedantic if you want...even semantically pedantic if you wanna get poetic.

But deciding to not believe in something until there is evidence is not cowardice,,,it's
intelligence.

You clearly are not pedantic enough. If you bothered show this so called intelligence you speak of and read all of what I said, I said it's that 'we see no evidence of a god'. This is distinctly different to belief or a lack thereof. Clearly this is a concept that flies well above your station.

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by rival
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Call me pedantic if you want...even semantically pedantic if you wanna get poetic.

But deciding to not believe in something until there is evidence is not cowardice,,,it's
intelligence.

You clearly are not pedantic enough. If you bothered show this so called intelligence you speak of and read all of what I said, I said it's that 'we see no evidence of a god'. This is distinctly different to belief or a lack thereof. Clearly this is a concept that flies well above your station.

IRM

The evidence is your singular consciousness, situated here, on this tiny planet, in this unremarkable
solar system amid two hundred billion other stars of the Milky Way--which is only one
of at least two hundred billion other galaxies in the universe.

This is the enigma that leaves open the door for God, or a higher power, or an ultimate energy or life
force. You exist because of something You are aware because of something.

The only other answer is that your consciousness simply coalesced right here, right now,
by a random happenstance of hundreds of billions of cells coming together to form the
perfect blueprint for YOU....

If you don't understand this concept, don't worry, nobody else seems to understand it either.
Maybe there is nothing there valid to understand because it is really just a question.
To put it succinctly, I can see no reason for singular conscious awareness without purpose.

To put it succinctly, I can see no reason for singular conscious awareness without purpose.

An argument from ignorance?

You can't see a reason, an explanation...........so the explanation must be a God, your God?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

To put it succinctly, I can see no reason for singular conscious awareness without purpose.

An argument from ignorance?

You can't see a reason, an explanation...........so the explanation must be a God, your God?

No, I'm agnostic about God. My statement refers to evidence for a God.

My stance is that the mere fact of my existence comprises enough prima facie evidence to leave
the door open to the idea of a God. Therefore I have a reason to be agnostic. While the atheist
I replied to stated no evidence existed for God and therefore "being agnostic" is foolish (actually he
called it cowardice).

Originally posted by rival



No, I'm agnostic about God. My statement refers to evidence for a God.

My stance is that the mere fact of my existence comprises enough prima facie evidence to leave
the door open to the idea of a God. Therefore I have a reason to be agnostic. While the atheist
I replied to stated no evidence existed for God and therefore "being agnostic" is foolish (actually he
called it cowardice).

Aaha so you're an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in god/s its just that like 99.9% of all atheists you don't claim to absolutely know there is no god and you're still open to the possibility?

'cowardice' is a bit harsh, but a lot of people refer to themselves as just 'agnostic' as they fear repercussions from those with faith.

But to hinge on ignorance regarding conciousness, and the seemingly unlikely series of events (which occur, millions of times a day, go shuffle a deck of cards), doesn't seem to be the smartest way to reach a conclusion on such matters.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Aaha so you're an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in god/s its just that like 99.9% of all atheists you don't claim to absolutely know there is no god and you're still open to the possibility?

Any truly honest atheist will also consider themselves agnostic.

The original basic meaning of agnostic is: You can't prove God - - nor can you disprove God.

No true atheist can state 100% there is no God. While "there is no God" is often used in debate - - if you directly ask the atheist claiming that - - his/her answer should be the original basic meaning of agnostic.

Atheist - - means one thing: Lack of belief in a God/Deity. It does not mean anti-God or there is proof there is no God.

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.

atheists.org...

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Wonders

 

I suppose this thread is evidence of jigger's awesome ability to think critically, logically and BY HIMSELF?

No, this thread is evidence that I'm human and driven by emotions (sometimes playful, sometimes serious, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes compassionate...). What I am NOT, however, is a mindless brain that's been programmed to spew unfounded, unverifiable, and sometimes downright idiotic passages from a religious text.

Yeah, you're doing enough of that without taking religious text out of context.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by rival



No, I'm agnostic about God. My statement refers to evidence for a God.

My stance is that the mere fact of my existence comprises enough prima facie evidence to leave
the door open to the idea of a God. Therefore I have a reason to be agnostic. While the atheist
I replied to stated no evidence existed for God and therefore "being agnostic" is foolish (actually he
called it cowardice).

Aaha so you're an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in god/s its just that like 99.9% of all atheists you don't claim to absolutely know there is no god and you're still open to the possibility?

'cowardice' is a bit harsh, but a lot of people refer to themselves as just 'agnostic' as they fear repercussions from those with faith.

But to hinge on ignorance regarding conciousness, and the seemingly unlikely series of events (which occur, millions of times a day, go shuffle a deck of cards), doesn't seem to be the smartest way to reach a conclusion on such matters.

Here is my stance on the issue of God--I have made no conclusions. I fear no repercussions from
either theists or atheists in regard to my beliefs. If I were a coward I would probably choose one of
the two opposing sides and take solace and comfort from the inherent 'safety in numbers' this
decision would provide me.

I would rather go it alone and remain honest to my own intellect .

God may exist as a creator, or he may not exist at all. Human understanding is
incomplete. We have no evidence for a creator, but we do have evidence of a creation.
Using our incomplete and egocentric human logic we cannot perceive of a "creation" without
benefit of a "creator". We have no precedent in science for this. And so when we talk of God
we have crossed over into the realm of faith and the scientific approach cannot be
employed.

Atheists say God does not exist. This view is based on a "lack of evidence" for a creator, but
the flaw in that science is that there is no way to test the hypothesis. Therefore atheism must
"believe" there is no God without being able to prove the negative. Atheism is not simply
an opposing side to the theist's belief...it is a belief itself.

Theists "believe" in a creator. This statement needs no further qualification. The word belief
is apparent. Therefore theists must operate from faith.

Agnostics say there is no evidence and I choose not to "believe" in either untestable hypothesis.
We say the evidence of creation exists, and therefore we remain open to the
possibility of a creator.

This statement appears illogical on its surface because the idea of a creator begs the simple
(but cogent) question, "If God created everything, who created God?"

Since human perspective and knowledge is incomplete we cannot know this answer.
Agnostic are content to 'not know' and not make a decision until more evidence is available.