How many atheists can you dismiss?

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunkBut while people may feel they “know” that their beliefs are true, it is clear that feelings and intuitions alone are not reliable tools when it comes to discovering. If they were, we wouldn’t need things like science, detectives, or juries — we would all “just know” the truth in every case.

The inherent danger in assuming that one “just knows” anything is that it stops one from thinking. It discourages further education, and inhibits well-informed decisions.

That perspective is subjective. A scientist may "know" particular facts and yet others who do not "know" can have faith in his/her knowledge and accept such as fact. A particular jurist may "know" what the prosecuted may have intended by their perspective of presented evidence and convince other jurists to agree and some may do so out of faith in that person's display of supposed knowledge. A person who has experienced a miracle may "know" that God exists and people who have faith that he is telling the truth may come to believe through his telling.

It's quite easy really. Atheists don't come knocking your door or stand on street corners etc. trying to convert you and if you don't convert they lambaste you. Atheist don't do any of that.

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: Lazarus Short this statement right here is why religion exist. People believing they are "special". A god creating the Universe but only revealing himself to a selective few because they are the chosen ones. We need to get over ourselves the universe does not recognize a human being separate from a fly.

Brother, your turn will come...

a reply to: toktaylor

True, however it is faith that there is something out there to provide order in chaos and well being during painful experiences. Faith provides comfort to many who would otherwise live in fear of the unknown. Who am I or anyone else to deny someone faith in something that gives them comfort ?

Otherwise they just become another babbler about how everybody is wrong and stupid ? I cannot prove the existence of God nor can I disprove the existence of God. I can prove the existence of faith on both sides, those who believe have that faith, those who do not believe have faith in that, it brings both comfort so I would never interfere with ones faith no matter which way they leaned.

However too many from both sides attempt to prove existence to someone or nonexistents to another and both are only proving what babbling idiots look like, I have faith in that, prove me wrong. You can’t because I have faith in that idea, it brings me comfort so why not allow it to comfort me

a reply to: noonebutme

Take it a step further, they don't mock people who don't believe in Thor, Zeus or Aphrodite but if you don't believe in their Abrahamic god then that's foolish.

Atheists don't understand that existence/consciousness is God itself, yet atheists still exist & are conscious. God is everything from A to Z & we are created in God's image/likeness. Without religion atheism wouldn't exist. Neither would monestaries, libraries, academies & universities & the narrow bandwidth of knowledge within them.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
No punchline, but there are so many heavily religious people that are dismissed such as scientology or the Amish or anyone believing in the Mandela effect etc. etc.

There has got to be equally foolish atheists.
Where are the atheistic loons?

They have to exist.

Have you found a flat-earther who is also an atheist? Look there.

Here's the thing I've noticed though. For every 100 different ways of being religious, there are 0 different ways of being an atheist. If you don't believe, you don't believe. It's simple, straightforward and doesn't veer off course.

Right or wrong, at least they're consistent. Gotta give 'em that.

Is there such thing as a flat earth atheist?

the whole fad came from the bible

a reply to: ketsuko

That's not a different way of being an atheist that's just a different way of letting others know they are one. An Atheist is an atheist whether they also believe in UFOs or evolution or anything else. It's a rather simple definition. It isn't as if all Atheists believe in everything else exactly the same; they don't believe in only one thing the same - that's it.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

To look at the obvious order and design of the universe and conclude it is the result of random chance suggests all atheists are foolish.

Anyone who claims to know with any kind of certainty the true nature of our reality are leading themselves along a path of arrogance. Theists and atheists share this behaviour.

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


Truth of the matter is that none of us know for a fact whether or not there exists a creator/higher consciousness. It cannot be proven or disproven.

The bible tells us that each man is given a measure of faith. Whether that faith is in God, science or the flying spaghetti monster is entirely up to you.

Not to be a stickler but.....you do realize that by definition you would be considered agnostic. How can one have absolute belief in the Bible/Gods word if they're agnostic? You can't if you believe what you've written as "truth of the matter" and "fact", no offense, just saying.

I never labeled myself as being a believer and never claimed absolute belief in anything. What I will say is that I find bits of truth in most religions and even truth among those who lack any religious beliefs at all. My faith is in what feels right and true to me regardless of the source. One does not have to believe that the bible is all true to agree that there is much truth to be found within its pages- almost every law is based upon the 10 Commandments but you don't have to believe they were handed down by God to agree that they are a really good code of behavior.

The point is that we all have faith in something, so whether you believe in God or not the sentiment is true.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


Truth of the matter is that none of us know for a fact whether or not there exists a creator/higher consciousness. It cannot be proven or disproven.

The bible tells us that each man is given a measure of faith. Whether that faith is in God, science or the flying spaghetti monster is entirely up to you.

Not to be a stickler but.....you do realize that by definition you would be considered agnostic. How can one have absolute belief in the Bible/Gods word if they're agnostic? You can't if you believe what you've written as "truth of the matter" and "fact", no offense, just saying.

I never labeled myself as being a believer and never claimed absolute belief in anything. What I will say is that I find bits of truth in most religions and even truth among those who lack any religious beliefs at all. My faith is in what feels right and true to me regardless of the source. One does not have to believe that the bible is all true to agree that there is much truth to be found within its pages- almost every law is based upon the 10 Commandments but you don't have to believe they were handed down by God to agree that they are a really good code of behavior.

The point is that we all have faith in something, so whether you believe in God or not the sentiment is true.

I'm not saying there's not truth in the Bible. I find a lot of truth in the writings as well as what I consider to be absolute morals and ethics that we should all live by, which has little to do with faith or a belief in a God.

Although subjective, truth and belief is the equivalence to fact and opinions. Many would argue that you can't have it both ways.

Every religion just builds off the Mythos of religions that came before. The big three are just rip offs of Mithra worship.
If we could go all the way back to the first deities they would most certainly be the Sun and Moon. As time goes on we started to anthropomorphize them and the rest is history.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: JBIZZ
...that existence/consciousness is God itself

Provide even a shred of evidence that statement is true and maybe we can have an interesting debate. Anything - any test I can apply to show that is true.

yet atheists still exist & are conscious

Which has absolutely no correlation to your first point. None whatsoever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

God is everything from A to Z & we are created in God's image/likeness.

Again, even one iota of evidence would help your argument to counter my contention that you are wrong in your claim that there is a God.

Without religion atheism wouldn't exist.

Again, "atheism" isn't a 'thing' -- it's the negation to YOUR statement that there is a God.

Atheism 101:
JBIZZ: There is a God and existence/consciousness is God itself
Noonebutme: Ok, can you prove it?
JBIZZ: No
Noonebutme: Then I don't believe your statement/claim

THAT is atheism. It isn't a thing or a philosophy. It's just the negation of your claim.

“Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors."

Isaac Newton

originally posted by: crayzeed
It's quite easy really. Atheists don't come knocking your door or stand on street corners etc. trying to convert you and if you don't convert they lambaste you. Atheist don't do any of that.

No. They sue you if your religious expression looks at them funny. See Freedom from Religion Foundation.

JBIZZ: There is a God and existence/consciousness is God itself Noonebutme: Ok, can you prove it? JBIZZ: No Noonebutme: Then I don't believe your statement/claim THAT is atheism. It isn't a thing or a philosophy. It's just the negation of your claim.

a reply to: noonebutme
Wouldn’t that actually be agnostic (you find god unprovable and nothing can be known to prove otherwise)? Atheism would be that you don’t believe a God exist. Similar but not synonymous with each other.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Theism or Atheism hardly has anything to do with someone's "lunacy", or the level thereof, but statistics may suggest that the quantities lie in the number of variations in the ideology. I.E. There are myriad forms of Theism while Atheism is, for the most part, singular in its ideology.

The reasons that someone holds to their ideology may be a different issue, and if we were to examine the whole of individuals' personal philosophies to scrutiny, we would likely find variety fallacies reasonably well distributed across the spectrum of Theism-Atheism. That includes the "Mandela effect" (i.e. confabulation or false memory), regardless of how many may share in any particular fallacy or their theistic bias/preference.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
Wouldn’t that actually be agnostic (you find god unprovable and nothing can be known to prove otherwise)?

We're all agnostic by default when it comes to knowing if God is real or not, even the Christians who claim there is one. They don't actually *know* - they just claim they do.

None of us are agnostic to the claim of gravity - it's easily probable and demonstrable. God is not.

I suppose in the broadest sense you're right, but I typically chose the stance that "atheism" is simply the denial to the claim in the existence of (a) God(s) and/or the lack in belief.

originally posted by: JBIZZ
Atheists don't understand that existence/consciousness is God itself, yet atheists still exist & are conscious. God is everything from A to Z & we are created in God's image/likeness.

While I agree with the latter (as somewhat of a panentheist myself), I cannot agree with the former, as that would require as consistent and universal definition of 'G*d'; which in and of itself would be, to many, a contradiction. (i.e. that which may be "defined" cannot be the whole of G*d, but may only be an aspect thereof.

originally posted by: JBIZZ
Neither would monestaries, libraries, academies & universities & the narrow bandwidth of knowledge within them.

Sorry, that one is purely a non-sequitur (with some possible leeway given for "monestaries" [sic]).

EDIT:
Just to inject some humor...
A "monastery"

directly from Late Latin monasterium, from monos "alone". With suffix -terion "place for (doing something)."

A "monestary"... well we might call that a bank.
[i.e. from money (Latin moneta), with suffix -terion "place for (doing something)."]