Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I never said you said god is an a-hole.

And of course since god doesn't exist the question is moot anyway.

However........ if there were a god, and he had done all the things in the bible, etc, then I would conclude that s/he/it is indeed an a-hole for the reasons stated.

After all your god did actually intend for people to live in the GoE - thats is what the bible tells us IIRC. And then in a fit of rage because his omniscience didn't work he condemed every single person who would ever exist after A&E to have to work for what he intended to be our birthright.

Boy talk about over-reaction!!

So the evidence is definitely in favour of gyour god being a complete a-hole.

Sorry about that.

"So YOU are saying..."

No, I AM not saying that, it's called a straw man. If you feel like interjecting your prejudicial arbitrary conjectures into the discussion that's fine, but claim them and don't act like they are someone elses.

If you read the Bible you'd know that God knew, and planed on Eve being decieved from the start. He knew and made provision for the sin of Adam from the start. Try reading the Bible instead of gleaning a few erronious hasty generalizations from secondary sources.

And don't apologize to me for hating God, that's NOT a new concept, I'm familiar with the behavior.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It was a question

And I do not think god is an a-hole - since god does nto exist it is clearly impossibly for s/he/it to be an a-hole.

but I am happy to own up to thinking that if there was a god, and if s/he/it did behave like the biblical one, then I would certainly think s/he/it an a-hole!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It was a question

And I do not think god is an a-hole - since god does nto exist it is clearly impossibly for s/he/it to be an a-hole.

but I am happy to own up to thinking that if there was a god, and if s/he/it did behave like the biblical one, then I would certainly think s/he/it an a-hole!

Yes, you had a quotation mark at the conclusion as an addendum that's correct , but lets not play stupid and pretend it was a 'question'.. it was an indictment. And a straw man, be a man and claim your prejudicial arbitrary conjectures when you make them. Look around, when I propose my conjectures I will make it obvious in the text.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

lol - if you do not know what evil is then I think you have failed the god test entirely - from any point of view!

Waht is omnipotence?? Really? you don't know what omnipotence is?? How curious.....

Well there's a definition of it -


om·nip·o·tent
   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

from here

I hope that helps.

Defining it was the easy part. Now try and recognize it when you see it. Did you find it? Are you sure?

Personaly I think Epicurus asks simple questions and comes up with obvious answers. tehre's no trickery there, there's no evasion - just a comparison of observations such as good and evil exist.

edit on 10-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I don't feel tricked by it, it just feel it's lacking, considering what the possibility of the existence of God may entail.

It's a nice try though.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well if that makes you feel better then by all means you think that

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well if that makes you feel better then by all means you think that

"Feel better"?? No, it's called integrity which is rapidly becoming a lost art. Good day.

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

lol - if you do not know what evil is then I think you have failed the god test entirely - from any point of view!

Waht is omnipotence?? Really? you don't know what omnipotence is?? How curious.....

Well there's a definition of it -


om·nip·o·tent
   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

noun
3. an omnipotent being.
4. the Omnipotent, God.

from here

I hope that helps.

Defining it was the easy part. Now try and recognize it when you see it. Did you find it? Are you sure?

I know when it could be used and hasn't been.

Personaly I think Epicurus asks simple questions and comes up with obvious answers. tehre's no trickery there, there's no evasion - just a comparison of observations such as good and evil exist.

edit on 10-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I don't feel tricked by it, it just feel it's lacking, considering what the possibility of the existence of God may entail.

the existence of god might entail the conflicts he identified not actually existing for example?

It's a nice try though.

Well he was only human and didn't claim to be onmipotent or omniscuent

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well if that makes you feel better then by all means you think that

"Feel better"?? No, it's called integrity which is rapidly becoming a lost art. Good day.

Well perhaps you should practice it some more - I could give you lessons if you like

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I already have a teacher, thanks for the offer though.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are welcome.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul



why not? I did.

You can't totally disavow your position regarding God's existence. You can disavow that God does exist, but that doesn't mean you disavow that God does not exist, and that is your position regarding God. Follow?

and you think that I make no sense??

I guess you are trying to argue semantically that if I have given up on this god idea thn somehow I cannot actually know that there is even such a word as god - since that would clearly eman I do know about the "god idea"

That's pretty pathetic!

I'm not saying you don't make sense, I'm saying that to say you neither believe in the existence or non-existence of God doesn't make sense to say, and I've seen that you affirm that you believe one way.

Care to explain that to me - 'cos it appears nonsensical so far.

You're not born an atheist, you can only become one after someone explains to you the concept of God, and you come to a belief either way about it. You may not have reached your atheism in the beginning, but that doesn't matter because you are one now. Are you saying neither God sounding like a jerk or God's followers being annoying lead to your atheism?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I know when it could be used and hasn't been.

Let me put it to you another way. Could your mind, an extension of your flesh and blood brain, experience infinity? Do you think it can? How do you know?

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul



why not? I did.

You can't totally disavow your position regarding God's existence. You can disavow that God does exist, but that doesn't mean you disavow that God does not exist, and that is your position regarding God. Follow?

A doulbe negative - is that somehow meaningful??

God does not exist - is that clear enough?

I'm not saying you don't make sense, I'm saying that to say you neither believe in the existence or non-existence of God doesn't make sense to say, and I've seen that you affirm that you believe one way.

Is english your second language?? Seriously - 'cos that doesnt' make sense.

You're not born an atheist,

Trivially that is not true - everyone is born an atheist because at that point you do not believe in any god. you have to be taught the concept before you can believe.

If you are never taught the concept or develop it yourself then you can never believe and must therefor be an atheist.

however I think your point is that to consciously decide to not beleive in god you must first know that the concept of god exists in order to be able to choose - and that is true.

there are a wide number of "degrees" or "types" of atheism - you may find this article useful for future reference.

you can only become one after someone explains to you the concept of God, and you come to a belief either way about it. You may not have reached your atheism in the beginning, but that doesn't matter because you are one now. Are you saying neither God sounding like a jerk or God's followers being annoying lead to your atheism?

Neither - they both post date my deconversion. I simply failed to believe all the stuff I had been taught and experienced that supposedly showed me that god existed - that was 30 years ago or more

It is only recently with the increase in fundamentalism from vatrious religions that I have revisited the matter and found that I ALSO believe that if the judean/x-ian/moslem god did exist then s/he/it would be an a-hole. That has helped convince me I was right way back then.

But since I do not believe that s/he/it exists then that is otherwise moot.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

A doulbe negative - is that somehow meaningful??

God does not exist - is that clear enough?

And that is your belief, right? There are some atheists that will say they believe that God neither exists or does not exist.

It's a stupid concept but people will claim that. There are some on this board that claim that, and I can point you to the asinine debates I've had with them.

Is english your second language?? Seriously - 'cos that doesnt' make sense.

Like I mentioned above, some people will say they don't have a belief either way regarding God's existence, and that is what I was trying to prod for to see if you were one of them.

Trivially that is not true - everyone is born an atheist because at that point you do not believe in any god. you have to be taught the concept before you can believe.

If you are never taught the concept or develop it yourself then you can never believe and must therefor be an atheist.

You can't say that you're atheism equates to the position of a new born, or stone. It doesn't make sense to say. You're an atheist because you believe that God doesn't exist. Baby's aren't atheists because they don't believe either way, because the concept of God wasn't revealed to them.

however I think your point is that to consciously decide to not beleive in god you must first know that the concept of god exists in order to be able to choose - and that is true.

Yes, that is what I'm getting at. And so you can't say you are born an atheist. To say that a baby is atheist the same as you, is to say that you are of the mind of an infant. Or you are of the mind of rocks and dirt, because they too don't believe in God.

Neither - they both post date my deconversion. I simply failed to believe all the stuff I had been taught and experienced that supposedly showed me that god existed - that was 30 years ago or more

It is only recently with the increase in fundamentalism from vatrious religions that I have revisited the matter and found that I ALSO believe that if the judean/x-ian/moslem god did exist then s/he/it would be an a-hole. That has helped convince me I was right way back then.

Well, they are notions that fortify your position, that God doesn't exist. And they are of an emotional stance.

Originally posted by satron
You can't say that you're atheism equates to the position of a new born, or stone. It doesn't make sense to say. You're an atheist because you believe that God doesn't exist. Baby's aren't atheists because they don't believe either way, because the concept of God wasn't revealed to them.

None-belief is the default position and someone has to accept a faith or a belief system – and so move from the default position of not having a belief to the position of having a belief

Remember it’s the religious that making the claim that their faith is the correct interpretation about the world – so whoever hears the religious claim will ether remain in the default position by not accepting the religious claim or accept the religious claim and >become< a christian or whatever

I think the problem is that religious people started being religious at such a young age they have to think of belief/faith as the default position

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by satron
You can't say that you're atheism equates to the position of a new born, or stone. It doesn't make sense to say. You're an atheist because you believe that God doesn't exist. Baby's aren't atheists because they don't believe either way, because the concept of God wasn't revealed to them.

None-belief is the default position and someone has to accept a faith or a belief system – and so move from the default position of not having a belief to the position of having a belief

Remember it’s the religious that making the claim that their faith is the correct interpretation about the world – so whoever hears the religious claim will ether remain in the default position by not accepting the religious claim or accept the religious claim and >become< a christian or whatever

I think the problem is that religious people started being religious at such a young age they have to think of belief/faith as the default position

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

The "default position" consists of not hearing the concept to begin with, thus a position can't be formed. You are atheist only when you can make the decision to believe that God doesn't exist.

Don't confuse the two.

reply to post by satron


Do people have to change what they currently are to become Christian (for example)?

If so then they have had to move from a default position of none belief (in a claim) to a new position of belief but if they >don’t< start believing then they therefore must remain in a state of none belief

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by satron

 

Do people have to change what they currently are to become Christian (for example)?

Well yeah, it's not a default position to be Christian. To expect otherwise would be like to expect people born on a deserted island, away from civilization to become Christian spontaneously.

If so then they have had to move from a default position of none belief (in a claim) to a new position of belief but if they >don’t< start believing then they therefore must remain in a state of none belief

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

How can someone that wasn't exposed to not believe in God claim to have a non-belief?

You need to word this better, especially since it sounds like a follow up to your previous question.

Originally posted by satron

You need to word this better

Needing a better word – you are not the first to point that out
(if you think it will help I shall call myself as a poly-none-theist)


But I think it’s simple

Theism (as in a-theism) is religious type that is defined by certain properties – there is usually one god who runs the day to day functions of the universe, answers prays and has given a revelation of its existence (in the case of christianity the bible, for islam the koran) to its earthly representatives

If you don’t follow a theistic religion then you must be an atheist – right?

There is another view of the god question

Deism - belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature but with the rejection of supernatural revelation - which is the main thing that distinguishes Deism from theism

So a god that sets off the universe but then has no further interest in the universe (or some variation on this idea)

Because we have no data regarding deism (in support or against the idea) then I am for the most part agnostic about deism (but some days I guess I could fall into the deist camp and then again some days I am an adeist)

Originally posted by satron

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

The "default position" consists of not hearing the concept to begin with, thus a position can't be formed. You are atheist only when you can make the decision to believe that God doesn't exist.

Don't confuse the two.

Disambiguating Faith: How A Lack Of Belief In God May Differ From Various Kinds Of Beliefs That Gods Do Not Exist

Daniel Fincke - June 7, 2010

The difference between lacking belief in God and believing there is no God is significant when it reflects the difference between an epistemological position and a metaphysical position. What matters is not whether or not you simply do not believe in God but on what justification you do not believe in God. In this post, I want to explore several different justifications for non-belief in God (or in different types of proposed or possible gods) and how one’s justificatory standards lead one to different kinds and degrees of non-belief.

When they say “I’m not saying what I do believe, but merely stating a lack of belief.” It’s like:

- Do you think there is a god?

- No.

- Do you think there is no god then?

- *ahem*

- So what do you think? Nothing?

- …Well, I can tell you what I don’t think. I don’t think god exists.

- So what do you do think?

- Well, I think I like muffins.

- …wat.

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

freethoughtblogs.com...