For me it has nothing to do with indoctrination and everything to do with the experience of my conversion, the life that came after and my position that love is unreserved or it is something other.
:e4e:
:e4e:
Why Atheism???
- Thread starter GodFearingPerson
- Start date
- Status
allsmiles
New member
I became an atheist because atheism is a better answer than the hogwash I believed before it. At one point I had some rather peculiar beliefs about how the universe works. Before that point I was a "God fearing person" just like you. I believed very strongly that the world was spontaneously created within the space of six days by Yahweh. I believed that Yahweh had a son, Jesus, who was born of the virgin Mary and died to save us from our sins.
Atheism has opened my eyes to a much bigger picture than all of that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. I couldn't go back even if I wanted to. It's like learning how to read: once you know how to read you can't look at a word and not read it.
bornslacker
New member
Why not Islam for you? Why do you reject all other religions? When you understand why you reject all others, you'll understand why we reject yours.
We're all atheists, we just go one God further.
Sorry, but that tired line was never accurate or particularly clever and it hasn't improved with age. The truth is that most people believe in God but differ on the manner of approach. That's not at all the same thing. :e4e:
Tyrathca
New member
I don't think it is meant to be taken as literal but to illustrate a point, one which you seem to have completely missed.
No, I don't think it is either and no, I haven't misunderstood the point. It's rather inescapable, but no less mistaken for all that. The idea is that you believe in one less god than I do, that in practice I'm an Atheist as well in relation to the God concept in any other form. But it's an errant perspective since Atheism isn't about a particular choice, but THE choice. It's just a flip bit of nonsense mean to illustrate an absurdity or commonality but only does so if you ignore the actual intent and meaning of the Atheist's foundational understanding.
allsmiles
New member
I'm curious: what do you think the actual intent and meaning of the Atheist's foundational understanding is?
There's no doubt in my mind that you'll push back against almost anything an atheist will say.
While I have even less doubt you'll find some way to infer an objectively superior position that you can't argue your way into, else...(and see how easy that sort of inference is for anyone?) I will always object to a declaration regarding my own belief or representations regarding the inference from or of it, where that inference is errant. As to the foundational understanding, how do you mean? The principle is easy enough and definitional. Most declarations that make Atheism relevant will be objectionable to a Theist and vice versa; but the inference that it is somehow unreasoned/automatic is just so much hooey, to use the Latin.
lain:bornslacker
New member
What Tyrathca said is correct.
Okay, let's look at your response:
Okay... you've made an assertion. Let's see how you get to that conclusion...
You're assuming that there is only one God and that all religions are different paths to that God.
You're greatly mistaken.
Do you believe in Athena? Goddess of wisdom, warfare, handicrafts and reason. Sister of Ares, and is the daughter of Zeus. Sprung from Zeus's head in full body armor. She is the wisest of the gods.
If you do not believe in her, you are an Athena atheist. There are thousands of other Gods that I can name that you have never heard of that you would completely reject, including the flying spaghetti monster. Are you suggesting that the flying spaghetti monster is a path to your God? What about the invisible pink unicorn?
Rejecting all those other Gods makes you an atheist towards them. Just like YOU, I do not believe in them. I just also don't believe in the God you claim.
Sounds to me like you can't get around this very simple concept so you're trying to make a straw man argument about it.
It's just not working.
allsmiles
New member
While I have even less doubt you'll find some way to infer an objectively superior position that you can't argue your way into, else...(and see how easy that sort of inference is for anyone?) I will always object to a declaration regarding my own belief or representations regarding the inference from or of it, where that inference is errant. As to the foundational understanding, how do you mean? The principle is easy enough and definitional. Most declarations that make Atheism relevant will be objectionable to a Theist and vice versa; but the inference that it is somehow unreasoned/automatic is just so much hooey, to use the Latin.
Maybe you're more thoughtful than your fellow Christians.
Exampe: I find it difficult to believe that there can be a reasoned response to my suggestion that virgin birth is hogwash. The concept flies in the face of everything we know about human biology. As far as I know, invisible fathers can't magically impregnate virgins with themselves. I don't feel as though I need to lift a finger to make much of a demonstation of the impossibility of this absurd notion. No Christian will be able to provide evidence for such a stupid belief so I'm not obliged to provide any counter evidence showing it to be what it obviously is to people who aren't extorted/manipulated into a state of juvenile credulity.
So if no Christian will provide evidence to support the stupid belief that an invisible father can impregnate a virgin with himself what other response to my objection can they have but one that is unreasoned and automatic? Is it possible to have a reasoned defense of what is unreasonable? How can you give a realistic defense of what is unrealistic?
You suggested the mircaluous in another thread. So perhaps a "reasoned" Christian response would be to explain the aesthetically ludicrous by positing an even grander and more unnatural and more unexplainable theory? Have fun with that perpetually expanding burden of proof :wave2:
Of course mine is the superior position
You're smarter than me but you're still a theist which means you're on the losing side of this argument. All the smarts in the world won't save you from that :chuckle:
I've answered you on this elsewhere...or was that alwight...:think: There's nothing irrational about suggesting that that which establishes a thing may supersede it or that that which establishes an order toward a purpose might interpose Its will toward that purpose in contravention of that order. When that happens the faithful designate the occurrence miraculous. The purpose of this world is not to be the inviolate terrarium of some Deist daydream.
Again, we aren't talking about the rule, but the authority of that which establishes it and the implications, rationally, of that power and kind. No one is suggesting you can accomplish it or any other flesh and blood being. The irrationality is found in your premise.
Or, be more thoughtful than many of your ideological kin.
The absurdity is in your attempting to parallel God with, say, yourself. Probably just a preoccupational hazard...
Evidence for the virgin birth that happened some two thousand years ago?
lain: Of course not. But stupid only resides in your naming of the consideration. It is in no part unreasoned or illogical, as I just set out. You simply don't believe in the foundation/context that allows for it. Fine, but don't pretend it's any more than that.So you can hold a belief without demonstrating its accuracy---because.
:chuckle:
As easily as you can support your moronic insistence to the contrary...(see, again, this sort of insulting posture is as easily goose as gander).
Aesthetically? :squint: Oh, it offends your sensibility of the beautiful. Peculiar objection, but at least it's more honestly subjective, even if you don't altogether mean for it to be.
That's never been a reasonable counter, though Atheists inevitably trot it out at some point... That He is more complicated, greater than the thing He creates is as inescapable as an infinite regress (pseudo scientific magic without structural support) is inevitable without Him.
I think the word you were looking for there was posture.Of course mine is the superior position
I haven't the foggiest about which of us could fold an imagined box faster and I lost my wonder at that shortly after being packed into a classroom of prodigies (like intellectual veal); but fortunately for either of us the answer to the question doesn't depend on that particular ability, the degree of possession distinguished between us, or our complete lack thereof (as some from either camp might be inclined to note). The answer/position and the argument is and remains a matter of perspective. I suspect that short of the grave it will remain undecided.
I agree that we cannot will the nature of reality, but further than that we'll simply have to disagree. :e4e:
No, but let's see what you have in the hopper.
I'm stating that it is the belief in God or the belief that there isn't one that distinguishes between Atheism and Theism. When you say, "Well, do you believe in Zeus then?" the real, meaningful question is do I believe in this explanation/understanding of God? And the answer is no. Similarly, I differ with the Muslim on the understanding and approach to God, not on the issue of Him.
No. Atheism isn't a particular rejection, it's a general posture toward all claims regarding the existence of God. The point remains tired, distorted and wrong headed.
allsmiles
New member
You state your case with an incredible sterility that doesn't reflect the bizarre, convoluted beliefs you actually hold.
I could imagine any number of super powerful beings who are capable of molding reality into anything they wish. The only difference between my vain imagining and yours is that I would have used it creatively and you have subjected yours to the confines of prefabricated delusion.
That's what you're talking about. I'm talking about an allegedly intelligent designer behaving like a lunatic. If the Christian god does exist then he doesn't behave like a rational power. Virgin birth? Give me a break. You're telling me the designer of DNA could only express himself in a way that is absolutely opposed to everything we know about reality? How does that make sense? I can imagine any number of gods who would behave more rationally than yours and these gods wouldn't require their followers to make such ludicrous defenses of their existence and behavior.
:cow: insert naughty word here
Or, be more thoughtful than many of your ideological kin.
The absurdity is in your attempting to parallel God with, say, yourself. Probably just a preoccupational hazard...
I'm sorry that is what you think I've been trying to do.
Evidence for the virgin birth that happened some two thousand years ago?
And there are things to be inferred from the alleged rules of your alleged foundation/context that suggest the Christian god is as real as Peter Pan. You want to seperate your alleged authority from it's alleged inane behavior and I don't think you can do that. Not logically. Even if your explanation of a creator is correct that doesn't excuse it's bizarre rules.
I think a creator god would be easier for me to believe if it behaved in accordance with the natural order of things rather than insulting the natural order of things, as well as my intelligence.
No. If you come to me and say that the virgin birth is true but you have no evidence to support such a ludicrous claim then I don't have to provide any evidence that it is untrue. You're full of hooey and that's all I need to provide in the way of a rebuttal. You don't have any evidence for your dumb beliefs, why should I provide evidence that they're false?
:duh: ?
Not believing in the virgin birth isn't moronic TH. Believing in it without evidence and insisting that others follow your irrational lead is moronic. Believing in the absurd with no other foundation than something that is infinitely more absurd is moronic.
I have real justification for using words like this when describing your silly little beliefs.
You may use the words in retaliation but you can't really justify using them.
No. It insults my intellect. Think what you will of it but don't build a straw man.
It's not an unreasonable counter. And like I said there's no doubt in my mind that you're ready, willing and able to push back on anything that compromises the "integrity" of your ridiculous beliefs.
Someone who believes in the efficacy of dirt and spit as a cure for blindness really shouldn't talk about pseudo-scientific magic
Yes yes, I know. You explain the unexplanable by positing that which is infinitenly more unexplanable. Have fun with that perpetually expanding burden of proof :wave2:
2000 years ago Deborah ripped her head open and twelve children popped out. It's okay, my god Dfjxncxlk made it all possible because he has the power to do so :chuckle:
See? I can make things up too.
I think the word you were looking for there was posture.
I haven't the foggiest about which of us could fold an imagined box faster and I lost my wonder at that shortly after being packed into a classroom of prodigies (like intellectual veal); but fortunately for either of us the answer to the question doesn't depend on that particular ability, the degree of possession distinguished between us, or our complete lack thereof (as some from either camp might be inclined to note). The answer/position and the argument is and remains a matter of perspective. I suspect that short of the grave it will remain undecided.
I agree that we cannot will the nature of reality, but further than that we'll simply have to disagree. :e4e:
You take my histrionics and semi-friendly ribbing too seriously TH :chuckle:
I think you meant virility (and thanks!)...
Imagine how wonderful it would be if you could sustain any of that with, say, an actual argument and example. That would be something, wouldn't it? :think:
There would be any number of differences, but let's begin with the most important one, that I am not creating/imagining the God of my understanding. Now you can and do hold my understanding a delusion, but that would be a far different animal out of the gate than your attempt to sustain a differing idea, since you begin yours from a foundation that is in no part an attempt to assert or establish a truth. The other, less important differences would be found in the details.
Again, we aren't talking about the rule, but the authority of that which establishes it and the implications, rationally, of that power and kind.
How so? Because the example was virgin birth.
So you've said. Again. How so?
Are you suggesting that THAT is your difficulty? God assuming a physical form for the purpose would be no less miraculous and your posture/objection here is ill considered by the kindest estimation.
So long as you are the judge and the standard is your sensibility I suppose that would be true. Not rationally sustainable, mind you, but subjectively true. Ludicrous, like beauty, is found in the examining eye of the beholder and not in the object itself, else reasoned and reasonable men would rarely differ.
Sorry you missed the joke, but we're both bound to be disappointed now and again.
Now if only you could actually sustain your alleged point.
If assertions were arguments I'd be overwhelmed, instead of merely waiting...
lain:Would anyone care to advance an idea of God that does so to see how quickly our friend here embraces it...
I didn't come to you with any particular claim. You chose the example and I provided a context. It is rational, sustainable and as supportable as your own.
What are you, two? :squint: Who said I lacked evidence? Evidence that would satisfy you? The only thing that would do that is the thing you will not attempt. How does one prove the omni or the perfect nature of good? Were God to manifest before you none of those would be established. Only God overwhelming your will with His own or your relational experience of Him can satisfy on point.
You missed it. Read me again in context with your claim that sponsored the comment.
There is a difference between an inability to objectively prove a thing and a lack of evidence altogether. But you know that.
Having already done the goose/gander thing enough I'm not going to follow you into further name calling. I will, instead, remark that my position is intellectually consistent and rationally defensible and that you've done nothing beyond declaration to provide a counter point to that claim...and when or where have I insisted that anyone follow me in any particular?
I agree, but then I'm doing nothing like it.
I'm sure you feel that way about it. :thumb:
I see.
lain: I'd bet almost everyone else does as well.You don't know what you're talking about...demonstrably. I've done nothing of the sort. Saying a thing is true isn't supporting the truth of a thing. That is why I offer illustration and build an argument on points that can be contested instead of simply declaring the value or rightness of a thing.
Re: complexity as an argument against God.
Why isn't it unreasonable? I set out the counter and you meet me with declaration...
Well, if you can't tackle the message...
If spit and dirt were cure for anything miners would be the picture of health. Care to try again?Someone who believes in the efficacy of dirt and spit as a cure for blindness really shouldn't talk about pseudo-scientific magic
Then you know less about the subject under consideration than I thought you did going in...and that's saying something.
Neither amusing nor argumentative...only a little sad. More so if you can't see it.
As I said. Only one of us appears to understand the distinction.
No, but I respond to them as though they warranted reflection and reasoned response whenever possible. But we're talking about the state and disposition of your soul. You don't believe it and so can take the matter lightly. I do and so, for your sake, cannot. :e4e:
bornslacker
New member
So let me make sure I understand you. All God claims ever put forth by man are just different "understandings" of "God"?
First off, even if this was true, what evidence can you provide to support this claim? Secondly, I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone from all the other religions would reject what you're saying now. Most would say that your God is in fact a rival God. Some religions don't even have a God.
Here's the point that's blazing right over your head apparently...
You reject many of the God claims, all except one in fact. I just accept one less than you.
I was just trying to point out to the original poster that once he figures out why he rejects all those other God claims, he'll understand why atheists reject his.
Call it whatever you want to call it. Those are the facts.
Tyrathca
New member
Do you accept the teachings of the koran? No. Then you reject that religion, that faith, and that version of god and its claims. There are mutually exclusive claims about each gods attributes, just because you are both attempting to know a god is irrelevant to the fact you reject their idea of him.
Why do you reject their version and every other version apart from yours? If you can reject their version why is it so hard for you to understand our rejection of yours?
Again stop taking it so LITERALLY, this is not meant to redefine atheism, we know you aren't an atheist. Duh. Its meant to illustrate a point which you still seem to be oblivious to. At this point even getting you to understand the point, even if you disagree with it, would seem like a small victory. But you can't even disagree with it yet since you still can't get over the combination of the word atheist and you in a sentence...
allsmiles
New member
No, I meant sterility. Are you a lawyer?
:yawn:
I don't have to argue for the absurdity of the virgin birth TH. Like I said the ever expanding burden of proof is on you. Have fun with that :wave2:
I already said that the difference between your vain imagings and mine is that I use creativity and you subject yourself to prefabricated delusions.
I may not be asserting or establishing a truth but I am at the very least demonstrating how your assertions of truth are not worth taking seriously. No one has to disprove my assertion that virgin birth is ludicrious. Have fun with that ever expanding burden of proof :wave2:
2000 years ago Rachel disembowled herself and a life giving fairy emerged from her lower intestines that gave super powers to whomever believed in the fairy. Don't worry, it's all possible because my god, Dhjdihfidhfd, is all powerful and can make it happen.
I can make up whatever I want to justify whatever silly claims I wish.
For someone as bright as yourself you certainly need things repeated quite often.
God assuming a physical form makes perfect sense if you presuppose the irrational. I could imagine any number of gods who would be able to behave in any number of ways that contradict reality to satisfy my sentiments.
2000 years ago Michael prayed to god that the clouds would rain kool-aid. God made it so and for forty days the people drank kool-aid from the sky.
See? I can make things up to support my ludicrous presuppositions too.
I am the judge and my sensibility is the standard. The same is for you, whether you have the guts to admit it or not. I'm not convinced that you do.
It's tragic that some would confuse your eloquence for intelligence.
Where I come from jokes are supposed to be funny. So you're deluded and have no sense of humor. Ain't my fault and it's not a tragedy I have to live with.
There's not much work I have to do to sustain my point: virgin birth is biologically impossible. Invisible fathers impregnating virgins with themselves is very much impossible. To believe these notions without evidence is idiocy.
There's not much labor required of me to make these points Sherlock :chuckle:
If assertions were arguments I'd be overwhelmed, instead of merely waiting...
No argument will ever be good enough for someone who believes in virgin birth and the efficacy of healing blindness with dirt and spit. Talking to you is like arguing with a drunkard.
No, no and no. There's nothing rational about virgin birth especially when the support of that argument is something that is infinitely more absurd than the proposition in question.
You already said you have no evidence for the virgin birth. It's one thing to not pay attention to my posts but to not pay attention to your own...?
There exists no such thing. How else could we be having this argument?
The thing I will not attempt? What are you talking about?
No one can prove the perfect nature of good because there's no such thing. How else could it even be a question?
I think this entire post of yours is an example of you trying to be too smart.
None of those things are going to happen and I know why. Do you?
Read it a couple of times. Not sure what you're talking about but that must be my problem, right? It's not possible for you to be wrong about this.
You crack me up.
If either one of us knows about this it's you :chuckle:
Virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection of the dead, etc.
How dare you taunt anyone with the onus of objectively proving anything and having a lack of evidence of anything? You've got some ____s.
You claim the extraordinary without providing a single shred of evidence for anything. I don't have to lift a finger to demonstrate the fallacy of any of your stupid little beliefs :chuckles: all I have to do is call you an intellectual retard and move on.
agree, but then I'm doing nothing like it.
I'm sure you feel that way about it. :thumb:
I see.
You don't know what you're talking about...demonstrably. I've done nothing of the sort. Saying a thing is true isn't supporting the truth of a thing. That is why I offer illustration and build an argument on points that can be contested instead of simply declaring the value or rightness of a thing.
And as soon as your points are contested you contest the intellectual fortitude of the one testing you. Your jedi mind tricks don't work on me TH.
You really think your word games are going to work on me.
You are a lawyer, aren't you? Or you're a cop.
:blabla:
This would be a lot easier if you could throw cuffs on me and beat a confession out of me, wouldn't it? :chuckle:
You're absolutely right. Thank you for that
:squint:
Lame dude. Really lame.
Great argument: assert that my argument is sad, especially since I can't see it. If you are a lawyer I hope you're out of work and your reputation is tarnished.
And you criticize me for making declarations. What color is that kettle?
Self-righteous indignation and preposterous claims made on a basis of zero evidence.
Of course not. I never claimed to.
What part of the I differ with the Muslim's understanding/expression of God was unclear to you?
Mutually exclusive in that if one is right the other errs in particular, but not in the belief or understanding that God is, which is the thing you have decided not to understand in an attempt to prop up a rather insufficient point.
Atheism isn't an act, it's a position regarding the existence of God. I'm not an Atheist when I deny Zeus as an inadequate representation of the God of my understanding. I'm not rejecting the premise, only the details that form a particular outlook on God. Sorry, but your hero did a poor bit of thinking there. That it was quickly hoisted like a championship banner is mostly amusing to reasoned men and women of faith.
It isn't about rejecting, but accepting the call I was given.And I wasn't called by Allah. I was called by Christ. No one was more surprised than I was by that, but there it is.
:chuckle: No matter how you attempt to align it, the two aren't the same animal. You reject God. I refine my understanding of Him.
I'm not rejecting God at any point, only claims that run contrary to my understanding of Him. It's the difference between two people arguing over what music constitutes the highest expression of art and the third fellow who doesn't believe music is art at all. You'd have me believe that to reject jazz as the highest expression is to reject the notion of art itself in that moment....sheer nonsense.
You've said that before, but have yet to relate what it is you think I fail to grasp. Try doing that...
And now you've made the same claim another way. Still waiting on the illustration that makes it more than you posturing and claiming some insufficiency on my part. The suspense is just dreadful...
That's what I thought you meant. You mistake not agreeing with not understanding. I understand, among other things, that you're in error. I've set out why. :e4e:
I've answered you on this elsewhere...or was that alwight...:think: There's nothing irrational about suggesting that that which establishes a thing may supersede it or that that which establishes an order toward a purpose might interpose Its will toward that purpose in contravention of that order. When that happens the faithful designate the occurrence miraculous. The purpose of this world is not to be the inviolate terrarium of some Deist daydream.
Again, we aren't talking about the rule, but the authority of that which establishes it and the implications, rationally, of that power and kind. No one is suggesting you can accomplish it or any other flesh and blood being. The irrationality is found in your premise.
Or, be more thoughtful than many of your ideological kin.
The absurdity is in your attempting to parallel God with, say, yourself. Probably just a preoccupational hazard...
Evidence for the virgin birth that happened some two thousand years ago?
So you can hold a belief without demonstrating its accuracy---because.
:chuckle:
As easily as you can support your moronic insistence to the contrary...(see, again, this sort of insulting posture is as easily goose as gander).
Aesthetically? :squint: Oh, it offends your sensibility of the beautiful. Peculiar objection, but at least it's more honestly subjective, even if you don't altogether mean for it to be.
That's never been a reasonable counter, though Atheists inevitably trot it out at some point... That He is more complicated, greater than the thing He creates is as inescapable as an infinite regress (pseudo scientific magic without structural support) is inevitable without Him.
I think the word you were looking for there was posture.
I haven't the foggiest about which of us could fold an imagined box faster and I lost my wonder at that shortly after being packed into a classroom of prodigies (like intellectual veal); but fortunately for either of us the answer to the question doesn't depend on that particular ability, the degree of possession distinguished between us, or our complete lack thereof (as some from either camp might be inclined to note). The answer/position and the argument is and remains a matter of perspective. I suspect that short of the grave it will remain undecided.
I agree that we cannot will the nature of reality, but further than that we'll simply have to disagree. :e4e:
Yet Deist daydreams have so many harking out, then falling back on what pleasures them. Not to say they put forth a cause that stands opposed, they hardly ever do, yet their lives ring out a desperate nightmare of corporal concerns. What seems reasonable and logical and finds no answer in faith, as faith has its own intuition, not that it exists in its own private world, rather it is what joins us more than reason; we are far more than teachable creatures.
WandererInFog
New member
What I think TH is trying to get across here is that theist does not (or at least if they're going rationally consistent should not) dismiss competing views of God in the same manner as the atheist does. The differences between theists are, in essence, differences of degree whereas the difference between the theist and the atheist is one of kind.
- Status