Atheists - why?

Post Reply New Topic

Are you saying that without religion, humankind would have fought, killed, and robbed each other without remorse or prejudice? I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either.

I agree. God is not dogmatic. That is the mistake that many so-called believers make. Read the Gospels if you haven't already. If you have, read them again. We see hear the story of a man who opposed a dogmatic system and wanted people to worship God in "spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

Now, here is the difference. Dogma must never be tested or it will fall apart. Faith must constantly be tested or it will fall apart.

This statement suggests that you don't know/count the various Communist governments throughout the world. They impacted history on a grand scale and their official doctrine is Atheism.

And this from someone who probably thinks the babelfish is proof that God doesn't exist.

Seriously, you're right about the person who praises God for saving them, especially if others lost their lives.

I don't necessarily believe the traditional "creationist" theory, but I could turn it around and say that teaching evolution is child abuse. Survival of the fittest, in its coldest form, would mean that many children would not last long, including those with autism or Asperger's Syndrome. I have seen to many people use psuedo-biology to hurt whomever they want for their own pleasure to accept such ideas as "man is an ape, and that is why he's violent/selfish/sleeps with many partners."

Not sure what the cosmological argument means. But I believe that God gave us each the choice to believe in/serve him or not. I have chosen to, you have chosen not to. What's ridiculous about that?

If you're right, then it doesn't matter. You and I will both, hopefully, grow old and die and cease to exist.
If I'm right, then it doesn't matter. I will, hopefully, continue living into Paradise. You probably won't, though I don't wish that on you, but you don't expect to exist in 50 or so years anyway.

Either way, why ridicule each other in the mean time?

did the communist have a stance on religion?

if so... you haven't understood what i meant with an atheists that totally isolated from any religion...

by nature the title atheist is coined by religious people. there is no point inventing a word if the root of it is not existing.

if there is no god... then there is no point in pointing out that someone doesn't belief in a god... since the latter does not exist and thus such a word as god is not needed.

in my world there is no god, so there can't be theists. so how come i am called an atheist then??? it is not me who chose that.... it was forced upon me by those who do believe there is/are god(s)

communist are communist and their impact on the world comes from their political view. not from their "religous" view or lack thereof.

i find it difficult to put my thoughts in writing right now... but i hope you get my point anyway!

Are you prepared to abandon your faith if it fails your test?

That's probably a worthwhile point and it indicates a vital mind set difference. For someone to accept something as true under the discipline that it must not be proven true indicates to me only a form of psychosis, not something I could either emulate or admire. That, to me, is extremely pointed.

In addition it is a blatant statement of the worship of ignorance and makes crystal clear why science and religion do not mix.

Ah, another fine quote for my personal collection!

Not necessarily. Civilized humans, certainly not. But back when the peasantry was barely removed from the wild, perhaps.

Anyhow, my point was more about the "persevere in poverty and receive your reward when you're dead" angle.

Even Cuba and Venezuela?

Plagiarism FTW... just not as much as the New Testament or the Koran. next time you should source where those arguments came from (i.e., Pascal's Wager) instead of passing it off as your own thought to make yourself look smart. I do not think I saw you do that before. Were you too lazy to write all of two words?

I wonder how many Christians would actually believe if there were no miracles. Locke had a book on that but I never had time to really get in depth with it.

No comment on the "I will hopefully" line other than low-blows like that make you a hypocrite.

Can't speak for Kladky. Me, the answer is yes.

I am only where I am [on the divine entity question, on linguistic practice, on Obama, etc] because in the constant S and W swhich is my life at one point they beat out alternatives. And if a better accountg of the available data should arise, I swing to the next branch doing my Tarzan yell.

That's science, brother.

Another member of the Picky Picky club - my wife and my Grandpapa are charter members.


Evidence, please?[/quote]

No - you show me a logical chain which does NOT trace back to an unprovable posulate. Of course my negative cannot be proved. But I have yet to see a counterexample.


You're still preaching to the choir.[/quote]

Not preaching Still Phil 101 - I am lecturing. Wednesday there will be a brief quiz.

[/quote]
a. Faith is belief in unprovable claims.
b. The existence of God can not be proven.
:: Faith is required to believe in God.[/quote]

But of course. And to believe in the Big Bang. And to believe that this chair a. is mostly immaterial] b. will continue to support my rear end - though I can to a degree test that empirically.




Elsewhere I pointed out it cannot be proven that I exist ruveyn cited Descartes' famous if a bit ingenuous [but what will you?] cogito ergo sum. Here I reemphasize that that is supported only by acceptance of the claim I am thinking [which I cannot prove and which in my case some doubt] and of the assertion that existence is a prerequisite for thought. Which I am very happy to give assentg to, but which cannot be proven.

Philologos wrote:

Easy enough to test. When you present a thought we can decide. I look forward to it.

Awesomely Gorey:
At last I feel I am up to reading and responding to youward.
Thou saist:
"Commonsense epistemological practices suggest strongly that God cannot be wholly good, omnipotent, and omniscient..., (Note: I say commonsense, and I say this because we don't rest commonsense on faith, we have it as a matter of basic intuitions.)"
I say:
I will not here readdress the criteria for judgintg a divine entity'e competence. It is the commonsense I want.
You appear to want to restrict "faith" to the alternate definition I have mentioned elsewhere, where as I prefer to use "faith" for the generic - that is the acceptance of a postulate unproven and often insusceptible of proof. I take it on faith that I exist - you accept your existence as a matter of commonsense.
Whatever, I am a linguist multilingual and polydialectal, I can adapt, though as a worthy grandson I instinctively prefer to be terminologically picky.
So: I maintain that my existence, the practical solidity of my chair, the possibility of at least minimal communication in Anglic with you, all are commonsensical, and therefore derive from an interaction between my onboard circuitry and past and present stimuli which my software is still learning to interpret. The sun also rising is consistent with apparent patterns I have extrapolated from the data.
So far so good, and most of the time I do not question it. Most of us are content NOT to question their existence nor the predictabilituy of the universe.
But my commonplace commmon sense existence cannot be proven. How do I KNOW - other than by accepting as probable - that I exist, that I am not a complex of code in a supercomputer, that my perception of the sun is not an operator's keystroke?
Convincing a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not proof.
----------
Again thou openest thy mouth and didst speak:
Occam's razor tells us that if two explanatory frameworks have equal power, the simpler one is to be preferred. ... by Occam's razor(not a faith assumption) atheism is to be favored. Finally, most theisms have ongoing coherence problems. Coherence problems are problems with the internal consistency of doctrines, rejecting something incoherent isn't a matter of faith, just good practice.
I reply:
Right on, Occam's razor is NOT a faith assumption. It is an arbitrary procedural rule, which the team may agree to follow. It is not a discrimintor of truth. A choice is not a premise. I walk through an unknown city, and I decide, if I do not recognize where I am, I will turn left, then right at alternate corners. I have found my way out of many unknown areas with rules like that, eventually finding a location I know - or an explanatorty framework that is clearly more powerful.
==========
Once again: AG:
Frankly, as GE Moore showed with his "Here is a hand" example, we all start off with commonsense. We build from that, but pretending that we enter the game without already having a background of knowledge is just idiocy.
I say:
commonsense = acceptance of unproven primes = [in my vocabulary] ordinary faith
background of knowledge = accumulated formulations accepted ultimately as a matter of commonsense [or - if I am talking - ordinary faith].

Your definition doesn't fit into our intuitions on faith well. We don't even choose these ideas, but rather we simply have them unconsciously bumbling about in our system. Faith is usually a conscious acceptance based upon emotional assurance or the insufficiency of evidence. (Note: not saying faiths have to be insufficient in evidence)


What further appeal will you go to? GE Moore was on top of things when he used his "here is a hand" argument. We can't go any further, and the very questioning of that is an exercise in ridiculousness.


What practical difference is there? If none exists, then why the distinction.


It isn't arbitrary.


Your vocabulary confuses the issue. Pick a vocabulary better for these topics and that does not conflate important distinctions and that coheres with general readings.