Why Atheism???

[WandererInFog]

I'll link you this time so you don't try and claim I'm making things up.

Well, this time you're not. The previous time you just edited the entry for theism. Now, that we've got an actual definition, let's take a look at how it disagrees with what you've been saying:

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Hmmm... Definition A and Definition B. Strange. It would appear as though there is more than one meaning of the word atheism.

Perhaps that's because they know what I've been saying all along. There's weak atheism (A: a disbelief in the existence of deity) and strong atheism (B: the doctrine that there is no deity). In other words, agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

And yet, this isn't actually what you've been saying previously.

You've repeatedly tried to state that atheism relates to to disbelief in a deity as opposed to disbelief in deity. If you actually accept the above definition then you have to acknowledge that the entire "one God further" argument is fallacious.

 

[bornslacker]

Well, this time you're not. The previous time you just edited the entry for theism. Now, that we've got an actual definition, let's take a look at how it disagrees with what you've been saying:



And yet, this isn't actually what you've been saying previously.

You've repeatedly tried to state that atheism relates to to disbelief in a deity as opposed to disbelief in deity. If you actually accept the above definition then you have to acknowledge that the entire "one God further" argument is fallacious.

Yes, I'll concede this. I believe I've rephrase my point several times to meet your semantics criteria. Once you believe in at least one God, you cease to become an atheist.

That does not however make the point I brought up earlier wrong. We both dis-believe most god claims. I just disbelieve one more than you.

So, call yourself a theist, atheist, or agnostic... that's the case.

The point I was trying to make was that most of us have a default position of disbelief regard most claims, god or otherwise.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, I'll concede this. I believe I've rephrase my point several times to meet your semantics criteria. Once you believe in at least one God, you cease to become an atheist.

Welcome to my original point. The Muslim, the Christian are not Atheists to a lesser degree...hence, "No, that would be the mistaken assumption of that phrase/quote--the idea that I am taking an Atheist's stand when I reject a notion of the larger question."

:e4e:

 

[Memento Mori]

Welcome to my original point. The Muslim, the Christian are not Atheists to a lesser degree...hence, "No, that would be the mistaken assumption of that phrase/quote--the idea that I am taking an Atheist's stand when I reject a notion of the larger question."

:e4e:

I just realized, this is dumb argument (and I mean the argument as a whole, not just what you said).

 

[WandererInFog]

Yes, I'll concede this. I believe I've rephrase my point several times to meet your semantics criteria. Once you believe in at least one God, you cease to become an atheist.

Alright, you seem to be at least making the attempt to be civil here, so let me attempt to reciprocate.

That does not however make the point I brought up earlier wrong. We both dis-believe most god claims. I just disbelieve one more than you.

To speak of "god-claims" is essentially a meaningless statement to me. Do a quick search on Google and you'll quickly find that the term is exclusively used by atheists in a dysphemistic manner for the purposes of equating (and equally dismissing) any conception of deity.

What TH and myself have been trying to get across to you is that theists reason about claims about deity in a different manner than the atheist does (again with the caveat of if they're remaining rationally consistent). If you're interested in some of these differences, we can certainly take the discussion in that direction and expand on that further.

 

[HandyAtheist]

I think the ultimate takeaway out of all the banter is simply: atheists are not convinced that a supernatural being (call it God, Zeus, Dionysus, etc.) exists. Why? There are some differences, but only in the details. The bottom line is that there is nothing to convince us that a god or the supernatural exist. There is no evidence. If there was, it would not be supernatural but plain old nature.

Having said that, there is plenty that science cannot explain. The duty of the critical thinker is to evaluate and judge whether an explanation is tenable. The more we know, the better equipped we are to make valid and meaningful judgments. So, rather than jump to God or the beyond being explanations, why not try to figure things out. It's quite refreshing and liberating to learn and grow.

My question is: why is it so hard for believers to think others don't believe? It seems to be such a strongly contentious point for some reason. I'm somewhat amused by it, actually.

 

[Town Heretic]

The more we know, the better equipped we are to make valid and meaningful judgments. So, rather than jump to God or the beyond being explanations, why not try to figure things out. It's quite refreshing and liberating to learn and grow.

Until you got to the God part I thought you made a fine point. Take out the "so rather...explanations" and I'm with you. The mistake that so many Atheists insist on making (and my point of amusement) is found in the assumption that the two ideas (exploration/inquiry and religion) are mutually exclusive.

My question is: why is it so hard for believers to think others don't believe?

Isn't hard for me at all and I rarely meet someone of faith who struggles with that understanding...but perhaps we're both blinded by the anecdotal. :e4e:

I just realized, this is dumb argument (and I mean the argument as a whole, not just what you said).

Reading this, I understand exactly how you feel.

 

[Memento Mori]

The mistake that so many Atheists insist on making (and my point of amusement) is found in the assumption that the two ideas (exploration/inquiry and religion) are mutually exclusive.

It's unfortunate. That (mistaken) belief is founded on example.

Reading this, I understand exactly how you feel.

:banana:

 

[Town Heretic]

It's unfortunate. That (mistaken) belief is founded on example.

But you know what's worse? Generalities...for the most part.

:banana:

:devil:

 

[Memento Mori]

But you know what's worse? Generalities...for the most part.

:devil:

And indifference, I guess.

 

[HandyAtheist]

The mistake that so many Atheists insist on making (and my point of amusement) is found in the assumption that the two ideas (exploration/inquiry and religion) are mutually exclusive.

Well, I guess they don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, they are certainly not very compatible. I do know a couple of scientists who are Christian. They seem to segment their religion and their science to a point that I don't get. It seems their religion is more philosophy than belief or faith.

You're right though, not every Christian is a young earth creationist and some Christians understand and reconcile evolution. I should not paint with a broad brush. It's tough, sometimes, not to do so.

 

[bornslacker]

It just seems to me to be more useful if we look at what's practical in reality.

Someone could make the argument that there are invisible walls all over the highway and that if I don't take certain (perhaps longer) routes to avoid them, maybe, one day I'll run into one and have lost my life.

However, in practical reality, I've never seen one, never hit one... on any road. They can't prove they exist. So, I don't worry about them. Because in my mind I weigh the odds of what is more likely, that there exists outside of the natural laws something that appears to have no affect on my life, but could.

Or...

Those people are just mistaken.

The decision gets even easier for me if I research where these individuals heard about the walls and discover that it was from other people who heard about it from an ancient book that's got a whole bunch of other unsubstantiated claims.

In the substantiated claim department their book seems to be batting zero for millions.

One could argue all day for the usefullness of avoiding those walls, or how my life could be changed for the better, etc. It still wouldn't lend one ounce of credibility to the truth of the claim.

 

[bybee]

I see it my way...

I see it my way...

It just seems to me to be more useful if we look at what's practical in reality.

Someone could make the argument that there are invisible walls all over the highway and that if I don't take certain (perhaps longer) routes to avoid them, maybe, one day I'll run into one and have lost my life.

However, in practical reality, I've never seen one, never hit one... on any road. They can't prove they exist. So, I don't worry about them. Because in my mind I weigh the odds of what is more likely, that there exists outside of the natural laws something that appears to have no affect on my life, but could.

Or...

Those people are just mistaken.

The decision gets even easier for me if I research where these individuals heard about the walls and discover that it was from other people who heard about it from an ancient book that's got a whole bunch of other unsubstantiated claims.

In the substantiated claim department their book seems to be batting zero for millions.

One could argue all day for the usefullness of avoiding those walls, or how my life could be changed for the better, etc. It still wouldn't lend one ounce of credibility to the truth of the claim.

"It just seems to me....", therein lies the rub. Because I too can say "It just seems to me...". After all is said and done, after all discussion and surmising, something happens in the heart and the mind that leads one to belief there is something bigger and better than one's self. Something with a plan that started the ball rolling? Or one cannot see beyond the rainbow to the prism which creates it. peace, bybee

 

[bornslacker]

"It just seems to me....", therein lies the rub. Because I too can say "It just seems to me...". After all is said and done, after all discussion and surmising, something happens in the heart and the mind that leads one to belief there is something bigger and better than one's self. Something with a plan that started the ball rolling? Or one cannot see beyond the rainbow to the prism which creates it. peace, bybee

That is so condescending, and then you follow it with "peace". You should apologize.

It's like saying, "There's those that believe what I believe and then there are those that are too stupid to believe what I believe... oh yea... uh... peace"

And people say atheists are the arrogant ones. Wow.

 

[bybee]

The twits are restless...

The twits are restless...

That is so condescending, and then you follow it with "peace". You should apologize.

It's like saying, "There's those that believe what I believe and then there are those that are too stupid to believe what I believe... oh yea... uh... peace"

And people say atheists are the arrogant ones. Wow.

Just as you stated what you believe to be factual, so too, I stated what I believe to be factual. If I am guilty of elitism than you are also guilty. And I most certainly was not condescending, you ignorant, ill-bred, knob-headed piece of flotsam! Now, of course, I am being condescending. The peace of God goes where it will. bybee

 

[bornslacker]

And I most certainly was not condescending, you ignorant, ill-bred, knob-headed piece of flotsam!

That's mighty Christian of you.

 

[Rusha]

That's mighty Christian of you.

You provoked her ... EOS. So either it is *mighty Christian* of me to speak out on her behalf or it the opinion of an objective viewer.

Which is it?

 

[bornslacker]

You provoked her ... EOS. So either it is *mighty Christian* of me to speak out on her behalf or it the opinion of an objective viewer.

Which is it?

I didn't provoke her.

her comment, "one cannot see beyond the rainbow to the prism which creates it. peace, bybee"

Is condescending. It's suggests that I'm in capable of understanding your argument. This is not the case.

It's just like when Christians say, "I once was lost like you... "

You're making an assumption about me and suggesting that we "just don't get it". Whether you believe that or not, it's condescending and rude.

I didn't provoke her and I don't think the ad homs were warranted.

In regard to my "that's mighty christian of you" comment, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be a fan of Jesus and his teachings (turn the other cheek) who then goes straight to verbal assaults on my character instead of arguing my ideas.

 

[bybee]

on looking into a mirror...

on looking into a mirror...

I didn't provoke her.

her comment, "one cannot see beyond the rainbow to the prism which creates it. peace, bybee"

Is condescending. It's suggests that I'm in capable of understanding your argument. This is not the case.

It's just like when Christians say, "I once was lost like you... "

You're making an assumption about me and suggesting that we "just don't get it". Whether you believe that or not, it's condescending and rude.

I didn't provoke her and I don't think the ad homs were warranted.

In regard to my "that's mighty christian of you" comment, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be a fan of Jesus and his teachings (turn the other cheek) who then goes straight to verbal assaults on my character instead of arguing my ideas.

Get over yourself you big crybaby! Honest to God, I had no intention of being patronizing or judgmental. I don't give half a rat's tail what you believe or disbelieve. I was making a comment from a believer's point of view. Truly. I was in a neutral place. That you choose to be offended is not my responsibility. I'm quite bemused by your reaction. But of course, you did come at me with snide comments and I'm just not big enough to let them go by without a little snide of my own. We could just drop this and talk to other people. I won't comment on your comments anymore. bybee

 

[Town Heretic]

I didn't provoke her.

So you get to decide what a reasonable reaction should be?

her comment, "one cannot see beyond the rainbow to the prism which creates it. peace, bybee"

Is condescending. It's suggests that I'm in capable of understanding your argument. This is not the case.

It suggests you don't get it, not that you can't.

It's just like when Christians say, "I once was lost like you... "

Which is consistent with the Christian belief that if you are not of the body you are lost, a slave to your sin.

You're making an assumption about me and suggesting that we "just don't get it". Whether you believe that or not, it's condescending and rude.

I find being told what I think or feel condescending and rude. :think: Go figure.

I didn't provoke her and I don't think the ad homs were warranted.

You obviously provoked her, intentionally or not. Or do you think you would have received that response following a cordial greeting? The only reasonable question is was the response justified? Looking over some of your remarks I'd say you got about what you deserved. Only she didn't report you for offending her...

In regard to my "that's mighty christian of you" comment, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be a fan of Jesus

See, calling someone who believes Jesus to be divine a fan of his would be both condescending and rude. Add to that the fact that you're questioning the sincerity of her faith and you hit the provocation jackpot.

and his teachings (turn the other cheek) who then goes straight to verbal assaults on my character instead of arguing my ideas.

When you parallel a patently and demonstrably absurd statement with a religious belief that is neither, you ask for a rough treatment. Either develop tougher skin or seek another amusement.