An atheist's grievances

Post Reply New Topic

Ragtime, you've said it better than I could have. Bravo!

Oh, the best part is when you start getting a handle on ancient Israeli politics .

THEN you start seeing the REAL drama unfold! HAH!

In that case, I think "atheist" carries a Richard Dawkins connotation in their minds -- almost a militant anti-religionism -- because "atheist" technically means someone who is 100% sure there is no God (which carries a connotation of pomposity, for who could possibly know there is no God??), rather than that person simply and somewhat passively not believing in God. In other words, I think there's a miscommunication going on, at least in many cases. In other cases, sure, there are knee-jerk-reactionists in the Christian community, just like anywhere else.

Last edited by Ragtime on 15 Apr 2008, 1:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.

If god loves us so much, why would he put us through so much suffering? It's completely contradictory to what a truly loving parent would do.

Christianity wasn't meant to be a lovey-dovey carefest like it's made to be today. Thousands of years ago, people were barbaric jerks. They would put women to death for being raped, they would execute someone found to be homosexual, and they wanted to create a thing that would justify those actions. Not to mention people were making up deities to explain EVERYTHING they could not. In today's modern society, Christianity is outdated.

As for your blind man analogy, someone who is blind has proof that there is a world around him. He can hear and touch it; that serves as tangible proof, which religion does not provide.

No, he doesn't. Many philosophers with all 5 senses intact believe there is not sufficient evidence that there is a world around us. Proof is all about standards of proof. Therefore, it must be defined, by answering "What is proof to you?" Or, as some say, actual proof doesn't exist under any circumstances.



That's evidence, not proof. God has given us evidence, not proof, that He exists and loves us. I don't need proof to logically follow the evidence He has given me. (And hearing and touching are also powerful evidences of intelligent design.)

Last edited by Ragtime on 15 Apr 2008, 1:52 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Other sense, he still hears, feels, and smells.


If touching or hearing something does not constitute a reasonable proof of existence, especially the former, then proof is essentially non-existent. There is then the argument that there is less evidence for God than a number of other things.

Well, it's both natural and logical to assume that the whole universe and everything in it was created, so I'd have to say that there's more evidence for God than for anything else.

Last edited by Ragtime on 15 Apr 2008, 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

True. Some Christians, like most people, don't study their professed beliefs in great detail, so sometimes they just spout things they hear, and grossly misapply Biblical teachings, ignoring the spirit and intent with which Jesus taught.

You have to be resentful & intolerant towards those who would resent you and treat you with intolerance? And anyone whose the least bit different? Oh, Griff, you've just shot yourself in both feet. You're not wiling to show anyone any respect or decency, but you demand it for yourself and whine like a small child if you don't get it. You admit it's really not about religion. You admit it's more about yourself.

You either can't or won't reciprocate emotionally, but whine and cry when others don't automatically treat you how you want to be treated. This is the exact opposite of the Golden Rule, loved by sociopaths and narcissist everwhere. You big baby.

No, it is logical to assume that it exists. The additional assumption that it was intelligently designed is one that is very difficult if not impossible to prove. Frankly, I could argue that the universe itself is nonsensical and nothing could ever possibly make sense of it because no matter what we have some weird metaphysics to examine that would by nature be based upon scant evidence and that could be questioned into oblivion.

I don't like crackheads either. I'm the kind of guy who sticks his neck out for people before thinking about what he's doing or who he's dealing with, and I've come close to my name being soiled because of it.

I certainly am! I just have a ton of personality problems that affect how those intentions come out.

Nah, I don't whine. If I'm being negative toward a person, I'm probably speaking in tones of outright contempt and distaste, and it really is warrented sometimes.

No, I just really have it in for people who are incredibly closed-minded because I hold them responsible for most of the evils in this society. I openly advocate having them hunted down like vermin and publicly eviscerated as an example. My feelings on this are lethal, and on this I am militant.

And no, I'm more Cluster A. Furthermore, don't call someone a sociopath or a narcissist if you don't even fully understand the clinical descriptions of the disorders.

People get pretty virulent when religion is brought up, don't they.

Griff, for the record, I'm a Christian (practicing) and I didn't find any of what you said offensive. I think that they are very good guidelines. I find some Christians pretty annoying at times too.

I'm not going to state any more of my opinions for fear of being eaten.

I know what these words mean. Wouldn't use 'em if I didn't. And I wouldn't have used them to describe you if I didn't think the descriptions were apt. They are. But who's this Cluster A. Furthermore? Now that is unknown to me.

Nice nonsequitir; you know I didn't say proof, but rather what is natural and logical to assume. Nature has infinitely coherent designs. Sorry, it's true. And that directly implies a designer. Maybe it's too simple for you to understand. Maybe that's the problem. It is nothing more than an emotional reaction that anyone would insist intelligent design is not possible.

Proof is something to look at. Frankly, the naturalness and logicalness of an assumption really goes back to the nature of the assumer. Perhaps it is natural for us to assume something, that does not mean that the assumption is the most logical assumption. If there is no way to prove an assumption though or really argue towards it, how can we even begin to induce a logical way to think about it. Nature has functional designs, some would argue that the designs are not infinitely coherent but rather actually rather shoddy, leading some to call this "Incompetent design". Frankly, there is nothing there that would or even on some level could imply a designer because to claim to a designer is above that. It is not an issue of simplicity. No, I did not say that intelligent design is impossible, I said it was impossible to prove. One can assume it, but prove it? Never, and frankly, if some naturalistic processes pop up that could take the place of such a designer, the assumption of one becomes unnecessary philosophical baggage for our rational assumer.

What if the "naturalistic process" is the Designer? I propose that while God is not seperate from His creations, He is not limited by them, either. I propose that He is manifest in and by observable phenomena. What I do not mean to imply, however, is the new age notion of the individual being God's equal or God Himself.