# Convince Atheists



## jwoodie (Aug 11, 2014)

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 11, 2014)

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone. 

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.


----------



## AquaAthena (Aug 11, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)



The few atheists I have known, do not feel that way about themselves. And they are not activists and don't approve of atheist activism.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Aug 11, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



Re: your Sig. Though the son of the founder of Hamas may have legit opinions on such things, giving his Arabic name minus any context of who he is or that's in fact a Christian according to his bio misrepresents or suggests deliberate obfuscation on your part. "Look what an Arab said about Islam!" Doesn't matter if he's Christian any more than if Fred Phelps had said it. Show something an actual Muslim said and it'll do what you seem to have gone for.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 12, 2014)

At least religionists allow for the possibility of something greater than themselves.  Personally, I believe that many questions are beyond human comprehension.  But that doesn't mean that they don't have ultimate answers.


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)



"They"?

How about "prove that there are higher forms of intelligence than humans"? I think there probably are, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence yet. You got some?


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



"They" refers to Atheists in the Title of this thread, which juxtaposes the question raised in a previous thread.  By definition, they believe that no higher power (i.e., God) exists in the universe.  If you allow for that possibility, you are probably an Agnostic.


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Nope. First of all, you're conflating terms. But apart from that, higher forms of intelligence aren't necessarily gods, and the possibility of their existence has nothing to do with religious faith.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 12, 2014)

dblack said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



1.  What terms am I "conflating?"

2.  Define "gods."


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Atheist and agnostic. But that's a technical matter that a lot of people mix up, so it's probably not worth getting into.



> 2.  Define "gods."



I'm just saying that they're not the same things as "higher forms of intelligence". Wouldn't you agree there could be higher forms of intelligence that aren't what you would call 'gods'?


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 12, 2014)

They would be "gods" to us, just as we are "gods" to lesser beings (e.g., other animals).


----------



## dblack (Aug 12, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> They would be "gods" to us, just as we are "gods" to lesser beings (e.g., other animals).



hm.. ok. Seems like a pretty loose definition of gods, but it's your thread .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 12, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.
> 
> Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.



Whaaaaa?

You assert that the atheist abandons sound reasoning as he flatly denies the existence of God, and right you are, as the construct of God imposes itself upon the human mind without the latter willing that it do so.  Hence, given the fact that the idea of God objectively exists in and of itself, the possibility of God's existence cannot be rationally denied.  

But then you claim that the theist makes the same logical error as the atheist, albeit, inversely.  

But you do something very strange:  you reduce the construct of God to a Being trapped inside the space-time continuum when in fact the construct of God is that of a Being who is the eternally self-subsistent origin of all other things and, therefore, necessarily transcends the space-time continuum!

The issue is whether or not God exists.  The atheist's flat denial of God's existence is irrational for obvious reasons, but the theist's assertion that He does exist is not plagued by the same logical fallacy in any way, shape or form.  

Ultimately, what we're talking about here simply goes to the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  

As argued against Rand's version of the atheist's logical fallacy:  the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin

Moreover, you wrongfully suggest that there is no evidence of God's existence, when in fact existence itself coupled with the imperatives of human consciousness are the evidence of His existence.  You're confounding the categorical distinction between _evidence_ and _proof_, and your notion about what does or does not constitute proof is further muddled by your unwitting presupposition of the empirically indemonstrable apriority of metaphysical naturalism . . . akin to the very same logical fallacy as that committed by the atheist.

The matter of God's existence proceeds from the fact of existence, and as God would necessarily be a Being residing above and beyond the space-time continuum, the matter is ultimately one of sheer reason.

It is not unreasonable to conclude, as the very best thinkers in history have, that God must be, and your notion that humans must necessarily be God, i.e., omniscient, which is what you're actually claiming, in order to reasonably conclude that God must be is absurd.


----------



## FuzzyCat (Aug 13, 2014)

So.....would any of you consider "Mother Earth" as God or A God?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?

I honestly don't care what someone else believes. Why would others care what I believe and why would they try to change my belief?


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?
> 
> I honestly don't care what someone else believes. Why would others care what I believe and why would they try to change my belief?



Only Atheists feel that the public expression of any religious belief system constitutes a denial of their personal rights.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?
> ...




But it's christians who preach that we must do as they want. I've never known atheists to go door to door preaching or demand we change the constitution so they can put their idols in govt bldgs.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



*Interesting that you only cite Christians in your response.  By the way, what change to the Constitution are you referring to?

P.S.  Jehova's Witnesses come to my door too, but it doesn't offend me.   *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?
> ...



Hogwash.  You've never known Christians in any significant sense working to change the Constitution to impose their values on you except in the fantasies of your statist agenda.  It is lefty who does the imposing, especially in the state schools.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others. 

What is unreasonable about that?


----------



## Peach (Aug 13, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.
> 
> Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.



The evidence there is creator is astounding.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.
> 
> What is unreasonable about that?



What is unreasonable is your implication that Atheists (yes, it is a religion) don't force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc.  Have you been asleep for the last 50 years?  Virtually ALL of the legal and political regulations in our public institutions regarding religious beliefs have been imposed by Atheists and their supporters.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.
> 
> What is unreasonable about that?



Proselytization is not a violation of your rights.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

Peach said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.
> ...



Only to those who have decided to believe.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish , including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.
> ...



Nope. Actually, its been the SCOTUS upholding the First Amendment. 

Even so, you're more than welcome to pray in govt buildings, schools, public and/or private buildings. There is no place, that I'm aware of, where that is prohibited. 

What is prohibited is that others be forced to join or endure. Except, of course, in violation of the First Amendment, religious statuary is indeed in one/some/many public buildings.

Religion belongs in churches. Period.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > True that other than christians proselytize. Morms too. Maybe other than christians want idols in govt bldgs too. Religion belongs in churches. If atheists tried to force their beliefs into govt, schools, etc, I would feel the same. As it is, religions can practice/pray any place they wish, including schools. They should not have the right to force it on others.
> ...



Of course it is. 

Some yahoo banging on my door on a Sat morning, demanding that I listen to some nonsensical crap, then leaving trash tracts on my porch and coming back repeatedly to preach is indeed a violation of my rights.

And, just try getting them to stop coming. The more you tell them to get off your property, the more they want to discuss your personal relationship with their cult. 

Religion belongs in churches - NOT on my front porch.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)



What would convince an atheist of a gods existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This standard is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.  

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on.  The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard.  If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 13, 2014)

Religious intelligence:


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Religious intelligence:



That's a photo of the effects of socialism on the desperate, otherwise known as Jone's Town, Guyana.   Which was the original "Hope for Change" campaign.  

Jonestown was built and tyrannized by a communist who went by the name of Jim Jones.  His vision ended, as all 'experiments in Left-think' end, in death and destruction.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


*
1.  SCOTUS decisions are legal regulation.

2.  Exactly who is being "forced to join" what?

3.  We all "endure" the religious beliefs of others.  Why should there be a First Amendment exception for Atheists?

4.  "Period."  Does that mean "Don't confuse me with any more facts or logic?"*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



Utter nonsense.  

Atheism is easily the stupidest notion ever imagined by man.  Its premise doesnt even get off the ground logically, and atheists routinely make the most incredibly stupid arguments against theism.       

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

Atheists are notoriously bad philosophers, including the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



That is true because you choose to believe its true. 

The same can be said of the atheist, of course. 

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder. 

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The argument for God's existence is ultimately rational, albeit, predicated on the fact of existence itself and the imperatives of human consciousness.  All of the atheist arguments against it utterly fail as the latter are inherently contradictory and self-negating . . . or they amount to the superficial pabulum of the unexamined kind as in the above.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Religious intelligence:



And many millions times that have been killed in the name of god/Jesus.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Again, that is true ONLY because you choose to believe its true.

Believing in the existence of a god, ANY of the various gods, demands the opposite of rational thought. You must put your brain, your ability to reason, on hold. 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you should believe as I do. You are more than welcome to whatever you choose to believe. 

I won't preach at you and I expect the same from (editorial) "you".


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Yep.
Every time we turn around, some bible thumper is saying they want to force entire classrooms to "pray".
Why? You don't have to endure me on your front porch. You don't have to pay my share of property taxes on my Atheist Clubhouse.
Period means just that - religion belongs in churches. You get special treatment. Why should you be able to force that on others?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Atheists aren't being asked to believe in God.  They're not being forced to modify their beliefs, in any way.  Which is in direct conflict with Atheist demands that others be forced to alter their behavior and otherwise act in ways which conflict with their most closely held principles and ideas.

When Atheists demand that a beam-cross be removed from the WTC memorial, that we not recognize the fundamental principles of nature that sustain a viable culture in our courts and other government functions and that individuals not speak publicly of the importance to discipline one's appetites and desires and focus upon the central force of the universe for guidance and its the wisdom of its intrinsic objectivity.

There's nothing complex about any of this.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)



Actually, the propensity toward arrogance manifests mostly among theists, and among many Christians in particular.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 13, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



Given the fact you've known so few 'atheists,' your assessment is both subjective and inaccurate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



This fails as a _post hoc_ fallacy, a consequence of theists' ignorance as to what it means to be free from faith.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 13, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.
> 
> Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.



'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures. 

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.
> ...



God exists as an energy which mankind is incapable of understanding, which sets laws born of consequential probabilities, which will either be recognized and respected, bearing a sustainable existence, or rejected and/or ignored, which bears chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This without regard to the rationalizations of those who are determined to ignore those principles and in so doing breed the aforementioned chaos, calamity and catastrophe.  

This is all VERY simple stuff.


----------



## dblack (Aug 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.
> 
> 'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.



Have you considered the possibility that both perceptions are accurate? Different views of the same thing?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

If you dont know the folly of the presuppositional apologetic argument, then you're lost, rationally.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It is true, because it objectively serves reason.  

A reasonable standard is one which objectively serves reason.

The God believer looks at the stars and sees stars.  

There is absolutely nothing within the scope of anti-theism that is either objective or which serves reason.

You're invited to show otherwise... but anti-theism and all other facets of left-think rests entirely in relativism.

Relativism, axiomatically rejects objectivity.  

Absent objectivity, there is no potential to perceive truth.  Absent truth, there is no potential for trust.  In the absence of truth and trust, there is no means to recognize a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality and without a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality, there is no possibility that justice can be served.

This is why wherever anti-theism and it's political affiliation OKA: socialism is found, one finds deceit, fraud and ignorance on the rise among a culture in stark moral decay, where injustice is the rule.

It all ties together.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

There's objectivity without a deity, and objectivity does not serve as a logical proof OF a deity. 

Omg.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 13, 2014)

More religious intelligence:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk]9/11: WTC South Tower Plane Crash - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

I wouldnt be so bold as to say that theists and atheists are unintelligent simply on the basis of their origins beliefs; however, both ARE ill found conclusions. The fact is, our origins studies currently stand at: inconclusive.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 13, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> More religious intelligence:
> 
> 9/11: WTC South Tower Plane Crash - YouTube



And you can bet they believe their actions were and are "reasonable" and "objective", just like Jim Jones, Billy Graham, Westboro, Pat Robertson ... etc.

Religion has always been used as an excuse for destroying people and countries and they ALL believe they are reasonable and objective.

All the various gods - they're all reasonable and objective too. Just ask their followers.

Whether its magic water, magic underwear, all the virgins you could want - it all ends up being the same in the end. 

They all say, "my way is the only way". 

And, they're welcome to it. Its just that its not for me.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...




Theistic arguments which assume gods existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I'm god free and also free of chaos, calamity and catastrophe.  

Seems like god is not necessary.  Maybe it is for you and other weak minded humans but not me.


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 13, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?
> ...



Why do you have to publicly express your beliefs?   To me it's hypocrisy. "Hey everybody, I'm  a christian, aren't I wonderful".  This is when you get responses from others, and some responses you  don't like.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You're mistaken.

God lives within you, just as he lives within all of us.  You simply reject God and the aforementioned principles, likely as a means to justify your foolish, aberrant behavior.

I know absolutely nothing about you, but on just the information you've offered, I'd say that you live an immoral lifestyle, likely a homosexual or one of the variations thereof, and that as a result you are an advocate of the normalization of sexual abnormality; which seeks to represent that demonstrably deviant behavior is perfectly normal, which by itself can produce nothing BUT the defining three C's of Left-think, OKA: Evil.  You further, likely abuse illicit or prescription drugs and alcohol... .

All of which falls dead center among those animated by evil, whose lives are defined by chaos, calamity and catastrophe.  

Respect God and his laws or suffer the consequences of failing to do so, there are no exceptions ... because that's how nature rolls.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

Ad hom, assumption, naked assertion. A pointless post.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Logically invalid?  

I see?

The initial premise assumes the Universe did not exist prior to the Creation, which.. I suppose it should be pointed out, is held by the brightest minds in science, whose study of the origin of the universe conclude that the Universe came into existence in an instant, from a great explosion, from which matter scattered, expanding across the span of time and space.  Which according to God, "In the Beginning there was Light... . " And... 'matter scattering explosions', they usually come with a fair amount of light... right?

Now... you're argument is not with me, it is with science and God.  And please understand, I am NOT GOD.  I only seem God-like when I am debating anti-theists.  It's purely an illusion created by the stark contrast.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Ad hom, assumption, naked assertion. A pointless post.



Where's the Ad hom?  Where's the assumption?  Where's the naked assertion?

Be specific, or... concede through your failure to do so.

Best of luck to ya.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

Post #55. Its all there.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Post #55. Its all there.



Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.  

Unless you take the bible literally, no one has ever even seen god.  And if you take the bible literally then you believe in virgin births, people living 800 years, people rising from the dead, the whole noah story, etc.  And if you believe those stories and you think it should be obvious to everyone else then you are just a fucking idiot.  

Know who agrees with me?  Muslims and Jews.  They don't believe jesus' mom was a virgin either or that he was the son of god.  So not only do atheists think you are fos, so do all the other religions.  And truthfully, you think all other religions are false too, right?  So you and I agree about all other gods, just not the one god you happen to believe in.  

P.S.  I have no fucking idea what you said.  Did you purposely ramble so we could not pinpoint exactly where and why you are wrong?  Re write your comment in fucking english so we can tell you why you are a dope.  Based on what you wrote, I don't even know how to reply because you make no fucking sense, just like you fake ass god(s)


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2014)

Too bad readers arent as daft as you are and can find them plain as day all within your post.

Dont despair at your mental incapability, we all have our short-comings. Mine is wasting my time chatting with irrational bloviators.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang.  They say they don't know what caused the big bang.  

Funny that use to be my theory that god created the big bang.  When I was a theist I use to argue with theists that hated science.  I said god and the big bang could both exist.  Today I see no evidence of god so while I'll give you that the big bang could have been started by god, there is no proof so far.  And for the record, the bible says first god created earth and then everything else around it after.  That's wrong.  But you guys don't care how many times the bible is wrong.  You still think it was written by god.  

Yes, logically invalid.  Just because we don't know what started the big bang doesn't mean a god exists.  If something had to create the big bang, who created god?  You can't have it both ways fool.  If something MUST HAVE created the earth then something MUST have created god.  

Saying god did something when we don't know is just ignorant.  Best answer is we don't know YET.  I believe they call this god of the gaps.  And in the last 100 years your god keeps getting smaller each time science solves a problem and it turns out god had nothing to do with those things.  

No my argument isn't with you because I don't argue with fools.  I simply tell them why they are wrong and laugh when they reply back with foolishness.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 13, 2014)

Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.



So faith exists only in the absence of evidence?

LOL!  Oh now hat's fascinatin'.  On what exactly are ya basing that?



sealybobo said:


> Unless you take the bible literally, no one has ever even seen god.



So that which exists must be seen by us, for it to qualify for existence?  WOW~  That rules out 99.999999999~% of the universe.



sealybobo said:


> And if you take the bible literally then you believe in virgin births,



Now human beings, they're comprised of matter and energy right?  And the creator of the universe, he created ...; now what was that?  Hold on let me just check this... OH YES!  The Creator of the Universe Created Matter AND ENERGY.  So... it follows then that a force which created matter and energy would have no problem creating matter and energy... . 



sealybobo said:


> ... people living 800 years,


.  Cellular regeneration... What would that require?  Seems like it would require some means to manipulate matter and energy.  Oooops.



sealybobo said:


> people rising from the dead, the whole noah story, etc.  And if you believe those stories and you think it should be obvious to everyone else then you are just a fucking idiot.



ROFLMNAO!  I so adore the sweeter ironies.  You claim that the force that created the universe, whose existence spans beyond your understanding, capable of manipulating space/time, this force would have trouble reanimating human tissue... YOU!  YOU call someone else an 'idiot'.  LOL!  You can't BUY that sort of entertainment.  No ma'am.  That is precious.



sealybobo said:


> Know who agrees with me?  Muslims and Jews.



And that would be relevant to what, exactly?  Is there some law which says that the more popular a position is, the more valid it is?  

If there is I would just LOVE IT if you'd share that law with me, 'cause I'm all about the learnin' and THAT would be a wonderful thing to add to my store of knowledge.  



sealybobo said:


> P.S.  I have no fucking idea what you said.



Clearly... and don't think that it doesn't show.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!



Why the redundancy?  But, with that said, I doubt she'd be shocked.  

Would you care to offer an argument which separates the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality from Anti-theism?  

Feel free to do so, I would very much enjoy that contest.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang.  They say they don't know what caused the big bang.



No one said they did.  I said that science says that the Universe originated from a great explosion of matter and that THAT is what God said, through the scriptures, four thousand years ago.




sealybobo said:


> Funny that use to be my theory that god created the big bang.  When I was a theist I use to argue with theists that hated science.



There are no theists that hate science.  Such is a myth.  There are however, theists who hate "SCIENCE!", which unlike science, subjectively advances cherry picked tidbits of data, as a deceitful means to fraudulently influence the ignorant.



sealybobo said:


> I said god and the big bang could both exist.


  You were less foolish then, as the two are not mutually exclusive.  There is no point in science which competes with the potential for God's existence.  God is objective truth and science is the disciplined study of the universe, which is exercised toward the pursuit of truth.



sealybobo said:


> Today I see no evidence of god ...



I expect that it is true that you see no evidence of God.  As your efforts are spent in rationalizing away all traces of such evidence.  

Such is the nature of evil.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 13, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!
> ...



Why in the world would I want to argue with a fool? I would much prefer a discussion with someone from whom I could learn something.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 13, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



LOL!  

So, you're here to learn, are ya?  Excellent!

Look this up and get back to me: "Cogent". 

Given your clear ignorance of it to this point, you should be able to put it to work right away!

Here's me wishing YOU the very BEST of luck.

In the mean time, your above concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 13, 2014)

Bait noted
Bait inspected.
Bait rejected.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer.  But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 14, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish. 



> Bait noted
> Bait inspected.
> Bait rejected.



Exactly.

Why is it too much to ask christians for the same respect I extend to them?

They can believe whatever they choose to believe. It really doesn't matter to me. I won't try to dissuade them or convert them and I want the same from them.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.
> ...



Well when the evidence points to god is imaginary and you accept that he is not based on bad information....

Last night on PBS or one of those NOVA shows I think they were explaining where and how life possibly got to earth and it may be in Mars and any other planet with water/ice and this certain amino acid that is vital for life and one of the most basic amino acids.  I forgot the name but anyways, long story short they landed a space ship on a meteor and they found meteors are full of the ingredients required for life.  They came from the meteor shower circling our sun.  At one time something happened and they started bouncing into each other and started flying off 10 times the speed of a bullet in all directions.  They landed on every planet.  We're not too far or too close to the sun so life is flourishing here, FOR NOW.  Maybe one time it was flourishing on Mars.  Billions of years ago.  Then the next show is Stephen Hawkins and he tells about when he discovered the big bang theory.  He said before he discovered it he fought with theists when they claimed the universe was just always here.  I know, it's still just a theory, but whatever science proves, it never seems to uncover any new evidence of this god.  So all you have is bad evidence.  Sorry.  NEXT!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Yeah.  I saw that.  You responded to a rather trivial OP with a rather trivial sentiment, something about the irrelevancy of it all, and then you went on to assert that theist arguments are this or that, when in fact, as I had already shown, your bald statements, that are not arguments, are false.

I have no interest in the subjective arguments being made by both the theists and atheists on this thread.  They're rather uninteresting.  Indeed, the utterly subjective comments made by the atheists on this thread are especially amusing, as they actually think they're being objective, as if atheism were not in fact based on nothing but faith.

On the other hand, the thrust of this observation _is_ objectively and universally apparent to all:   

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

In other words, that's the starting point.  If you don't grasp the objectively self-evident realities of human cognition concerning the issue of ultimate origin understood in the history of ideas for centuries . . . then you're just making baby talk.  Clayton Jones' nonsense that the construct of God is merely the product of human culture is especially silly.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang.  They say they don't know what caused the big bang.
> ...



What a typical arrogant ignorant christian view.  One other reason I was turned off to christianity.  Like Ghandi said, "this jesus guy sounded like a great guy, but christians not so much".  

You dare say my side is being "fraudul and ignorant." when this is the facts about your god or any god.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible (or Koran or Old Testament or Mormon or Jehova books too) concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support their various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate,factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.  

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Don't forget we aren't the ones claiming to know.  We don't know if there is a god.  Do you?  We see your evidence and say sorry we need more evidence.  And for whoever earlier said that's the devil, fuck you.  That's your weak mind falling for a churches schtick about heaven and hell.  

Notice everyone who believes in hell thinks their going to heaven?  Interesting.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



The problem is their cult(s) I mean their churches say anyone who doesn't believe will go to hell for eternity so it is their duty to spread the truth.  

Here are their more extreme "believers"  BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills 'demons'

Willing to kill you if you don't join.  These are christians but muslims and jews are no better or worse at murder/death/kill.  God's children are doing a great job.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 14, 2014)

Not to mention, a deity is not a prerequisite for objectivity.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 14, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Speaking of weak minds, Atheists are more insistent than any other religious group in claiming to know, definitively, everything about the nature of human existence in the universe.  ("Period.")  Or do you not know the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic?  Only the former seem to be outraged by the religious expressions of others.

P.S.  I have to laugh when Hawkings and others refer to a "God Particle"  as proof that God doesn't exist...


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



That's silly. It's precisely the humility of atheists, and their unwillingness to pretend they know some they don't, that prevents them from having religious faith.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 14, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Well, I see that you either didn't read the axiomatic, logically unassailable proof regarding the fact of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin or didn't understand it, given the fact that it is not a proof of God's existence, but a proof of something else, which incontrovertibly demonstrates the irrationality of the atheist's assertion.  The atheist most certainly _does_ claim to know something that is not logically defensible.

Your observation, such as it is, is a non sequitur, utterly irrelevant.  

If you're argument is that of an agnostic, well, that's a different matter altogether.  But in any event as you obviously have never even bothered to examine the strictly faith-based flatulence of your biases against the actualities of the universally absolute and, consequently, inescapable facts of human consciousness regarding the problem of origin, you're still spouting slogans of a subjective nature. 

Get back to me once you've come to grips with those facts and can intelligibly demonstrate your understanding of them.  They are not subjective, but objectively apparent to all.  This has been well-understood for centuries.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



*Profound ignorance at work.  Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist.  Most other religions acknowledge the limits of human understanding. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 14, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Not to mention, a deity is not a prerequisite for objectivity.





Not to mention that I never claimed it was.  *In fact, that's the whole point!  It's not!*  

So you've never considered or don't understand the irrefutable ramifications of the _ireductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin either, eh?

G.T., science necessarily presupposes these ramifications.

Yeah.  Behold:  the typical closed-minded, unexamined, subjective blather of atheism.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 14, 2014)

If anything was blather, it was that ^


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Most of them aren't. I realize that the image of the anti-religious atheist 'zealot' makes a better target for you, but it doesn't resemble reality. Most atheists no more strident in their certainty that god doesn't exist than they are strident in their certainty that Elvis isn't still alive. He might be, but it seems unlikely. And since they don't see convincing proof that he is, they don't "believe". That's all there is too it. 

And no, before you go down that road again, that's not "agnostic". Agnosticism is the point of view that the existence of gods isn't a provable concept. Most atheists think you _could_ prove god's existence, and that it just hasn't been proven.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 14, 2014)

G.T. said:


> If anything was blather, it was that ^



LOL!  How would you know?  You obviously don't understand the matter at all.  If you did, you wouldn't have foolishly imagined that I was arguing that "a deity is . . . a prerequisite for objectivity."

Eureka!

Now tell us, if you can, why is it true that "a deity is _not_ a prerequisite for objectivity relative to the ramifications of the _ireductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, and while you're at it, tell us, if you dare be intellectually honest, what that reveals about the atheist's assertion.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 14, 2014)

As a child, a remember my grandmother praying one morning, and asking god not to let it rain that day, because she had to go shopping. It didn't rain, so I guess that god exists, after all.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



*What evidence would it take to prove God's existence? *


----------



## G.T. (Aug 14, 2014)

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.



Exactly.  And kiddos, you want to convince someone, don't talk it up or try to prove it, put your money where Jesus said to and *Live It.*  That works...


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 15, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Yet we find opposite here on the forums and the rest of America


> Though eight in ten Americans say they believe in God, only about three in five say they are "absolutely certain" God exists, a new poll shows.
> 
> A poll by Harris Interactive of over 2,000 adults found that *59 percent of Americans are "absolutely certain"* and 15 percent are "somewhat certain" that there is a God.
> 
> ...


Most Americans Say God Exists; Fewer Are 'Absolutely Certain'


... and more
"Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they are "convinced" that God exists"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20437/americans-little-doubt-god-exists.aspx


----------



## dblack (Aug 15, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



I'm not sure, but that's not my point.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Aug 15, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.



Nonsense.  It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that God must be.  Indeed, it's perfectly reasonable to hold that is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 15, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Religious intelligence:
> ...




No...  That's false.  In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus.  So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.  

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.  

Now with THAT said, in just the last century alone, the Ideological Left has, IN PEACE TIME: murdered OVER 100 million people, in the name of Social-Justice and Secular-Humanism. 

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million 
African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million... 

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 15, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...
> 
> Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.
> 
> Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.


Start with the easy one first. Most people killed in these revolutions were the leftist by American armed and trained death squads. CIA backed coups and American puppet regimes did most of the killings here. Also don't forget it was the christian nation of America that supported apartheid in South Africa.  Please look at the history surrounding military intervention in regards to Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Brazil.


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 15, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Here's the count:
> 
> Mao 75 Million
> Stalin 25 Million
> Pol Pot 3 Million


I'm not going to back these regimes which not one person who considers themselves liberal ever has either yet these numbers are so overblown by propaganda it's ridiculous. These over inflated numbers also include deaths attributed to  civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, prisoner executions, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. Some have even stated mass killings in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval. During moments of extreme social crisis genocide occurs through both communists and non-communist movements. Iraq right now is going through an extreme social upheaval. Nobody is killing anyone in the name of atheism.


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 15, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No...  That's false.  In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.
> 
> Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.
> 
> ...


This part is laughable. Break open a history book and do some research on the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Anti-balaka Christian militants  of Africa, and the Inquisition to name a few. Way too many to name all.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Killings for Christianity
Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 15, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...
> ...



ROFL!  Howard Zinn is that YOU?  

So, it was America that MADE the socialists bad?  

LOL... that is ADORABLE!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 15, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the count:
> ...



When she says that she's 'not going to back any of these regimes', she is actually telling you that she's not going 'to admit that these collectives were leftist'; thus representative of her own 'feelings'.

A marvelous demonstration of a deep seated psychosis, presenting in stark, impenetrable as delusion.

Thank you... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 15, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > No...  That's false.  In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.
> ...



The CRUSADES?  

They began as a result of a lunatic pedophile (sexual deviant, adherent to what is OKA: Sexual abnormality, demonstrating a tendency toward sociopathy) named Muhammad, who died in the late 7th century... but who had built a reputation for murdering anyone who disagreed with him...  just as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbullah, were all proponents of stringent social regimentation, enforced from a strong centralized government, setting their own needs, to which they deceitfully referred, as "the needs of the people..." over the rights of the individual.

The Crusades lasted for 500 years.  And best estimates are that 200,000 - 500,000 people were killed as a result of those endless WARS, caused by the sociopathy common to Islam.  With the Christian's simply defending themselves from the manifest evil of the early Ideological Left, OKA: Islam.   Today, those infected with this sociopathy NEVER let themselves, let alone anyone else 'know' of the CENTURIES of Islamic attack upon Christians.  Preferring instead, to fraudulently advance the deceit that the defensive actions taken by the Christians was THE OFFENSE known entirely as "The Crusades", and they do so a means to influence the ignorant.  

For those keeping score, this will ring familiar. 

As today, in our own times, the Left witness then ignore Islam launching thousands of missiles and armed attacks upon and into the homes, schools, synagogues and playgrounds of Israelis... then WAIL AND GNASH THEIR TEETH when Israel defends themselves, that the defensive actions of a peaceful people, are "ATTACKS UPON THE INNOCENT".  (Yes, that behavior is an unmistakable symptom of clinical psychosis, and an expressed symptom of the idealogical sociopath.)

Now the Inquisitions spanned 350 years, starting in the 13th Century, and was again, a POLITICAL exercise, which sought to advance stringently enforced rules by a strong central authority, which set the needs of the collective over the rights of the individual... it is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 3000-5000 people

Now more recently, ya missed "The Terrors", which opened the West's first bout of terrorism; introducing the first real demonstration of the secular political organism known as "The Ideological Left".  It which lasted almost 9 whole months, with 50,000 people murdered, in the LATE 18th Century.  

So it's fair to call that "500,000 killed" *in Wars and Political actions* which were carried out for more than 500 years, ending OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO, in contrast to the 100+ MILLION PEOPLE who the Ideological Left murdered IN THE LAST 70 YEARS!  IN PEACE TIME. (That means there were no Wars being fought, purely the result of a sick, demented species of Godless [secular] reasoning.) 

But hey, such is the nature of evil and historically, where evil is organized, it has done so through the idea that God wants someone else DEAD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY that God does not exist.  

And while to the ignorant this seems to represent two diametrically opposing points of view, it does not.  As BOTH rest entirely in Deceit and Fraudulence and both require Ignorance to spread.  Thus both originate from the same source and both serve precisely the same purpose: To advance chaos, calamity and catastrophe.  Thus both are known by their actions, therefore recognized as that which is manifestly the same.

Knowing this, there should be no sense of surprise when one finds one supporting the other, promoting the interests of the other, all the while simultaneously attacking those who oppose BOTH!

Now, would there be anything else?  Or will your above concession, suffice?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Nope, not reasonable at all.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Nope, not reasonable at all.




LOL!  Relativism on Parade.  

In nearly every facet of modern life, we see and otherwise sense the rot of relativism.  And the above 'contribution', is a classic example of just that and that is in large measure the problem with the anti-theists.  They are incapable of objective reason.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

The exact opposite is true, of course.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> The exact opposite is true, of course.



Thank you for the confirmation. 

While validation is never required for sound argument, it is always nice to have.  

And I want you to know GT, that it is clear to me that you are doing the very BEST you can.  Keep trying.  Sooner or later the odds of probability require that you will stumble into a valid point and, won't that be nice for everyone?


----------



## BobPlumb (Aug 16, 2014)

A discussion/argument on a message board will not convince an atheist that God exists.  It will take a personal experience to do so. 

[ame=http://youtu.be/kWjlkm5g-Tk]OhGod.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, not reasonable at all.
> ...



How dare you accuse us of that when that is what you guys do.

Objective?  not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Think about it.  You've/We all have been/were brainwashed with this god from when we were too young to think rationally or logically.  

You guys believe because you WANT to believe.  WANT.  In other words, your belief is emotion based.  You believe despite the lack of evidence.  Just like my dad who can't believe there is no god.  No proof is needed.  He just can't imagine there isn't one.  Is that being objective or using logical reasoning?  Hell no it isn't.  

And atheists put all their emotions aside when we consider if there is a god.  We even ask you to not threaten us with eternal hell when you try to convince us but many of you can't help it.  

If threatening people with hell is what you call objective reasoning, go fuck yourselves.    

Atheist are simply unconvinced after hearing your arguments.


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 16, 2014)

"HOW DARE YOU?"  If you are that easily offended, maybe you should go back to your little discussion group where everyone agrees with each other.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> A discussion/argument on a message board will not convince an atheist that God exists.  It will take a personal experience to do so.
> 
> OhGod.wmv - YouTube



LOL!  Great clip.

I used to do ... .   You know what I'm going to just do it.  I think you'll enjoy it.

Dah... I couldn't find it, must be on another drive. No worries, I'll recreate it here:

Imagine that you're walking along and suddenly, everything around you freezes... you remain wholly animated, lucid and free to move; but all around you, every other facet of your existence is apparently frozen.

Before you appears another person... nondescript; whatever would appear to you as something you could never be threatened by, would instinctively trust and not confuse as someone with whom you have some experience or would have ever known. 

This person's voice is calm and invokes comfort, confidence and trust.  They explain to you that you are safe, will not be harmed, that your consciousness has been accelerated to perceive them in a span of time for which, ordinarily, your brain is incapable of accounting.  That the events that you're presently witnessing are occurring within a infinitesimal moment of your life, an otherwise imperceptible sliver of a second.  

You find yourself calm, without fear or concern and wonder who this is and why they are speaking to you, but while you do not know them, you trust them.

The person then informs you that they are God and have come to you to assure you that they exist, that you are their child and that they're there to answer all of your questions, so that you can from the next moment, spend the rest of your life on this earth, knowing the truth and live your life free of worry and want.

It then gives you the opportunity to ask it whatever you will, answers all of your greatest curiosities, tells you who shot Kennedy; allowing you to see it as it happened, listening to all of the various discussions leading up to it... you experience JFKs thoughts in his final moments; along with the thoughts of all of the respective players, relevant to his life at that moment; you understand... .

You're on the Moon with Armstrong and Aldrin.  You're in the head of Elvis, when he expires, you see him wherever he is at that moment.  You experience the building of the great Pyramids... you're stepping out of a wooden launch onto a cold rocky shoreline, with you are members of your congregation, as you realize you have arrived at the end of your long journey... .

You witness the unimaginable light breaking the darkness at the moment our Universe is created.  

EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know... you witness cold, lifeless matter morphing into anything you imagine, you instinctively understand the composition of sub-molecular space/time, comprehending the nature of nature at levels you could have never before imagined; THE UNIVERSE is made known to you; you know the meaning of life itself.  

Then, as quickly as it came, without missing a step, your environment is reanimated... you  recall the events entirely, everything you experienced is fully intact in your mind.

ASSUMING that such occurred to you: Now what?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The exact opposite is true, of course.
> ...


Dont get pissy with me because you cannot produce a well reasoned proof for the existence of a deity, chucky.

there's no burden on these shoulders to prove the negative. Im perfectly sitting atop sound judgment in my agnosticism, the position cannot be defeated rationally.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



LOL!  Please show where I have asked for a negative to be proven.  And please do so in SPECIFIC TERMS.

(The reader should know that from this point, there will be no evidence forthcoming, wherein it will be shown that I have asked for a negative to be proven.  At best, there will be a few snarky comments which leans entirely upon deflection and obfuscation.  

Enjoy... . )


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Please show where I said that you asked me to prove the negative.


Ill wait.



I can do inane derp shit too, but its kind of a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Please show where I said that you asked me to prove the negative.
> 
> 
> Ill wait.
> ...





G.T. said:


> ... there's no burden on these shoulders to prove the negative. ...



Now that's you stating that you were being forced to prove a negative, right?  And it was from THERE, that I challenged you to show where I required you to prove a negative... in which I noted that you would not only be unable to do so, but that you would return to obscure and otherwise deflect from the point?

Folks... please understand, I am not God.  I simply appear God-like when I am in proximity to this level of evil.  

I trust everyone will understand that.

And GT, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

No, I did not state that I was being forced to do anything.

Nice fail. But the best fails are the ones done so cocky like yours was. So, great fail.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> No, I did not state that I was being forced to do anything.
> 
> Nice fail. But the best fails are the ones done so cocky like yours was. So, great fail.



ROFLMNAO!

So... this isn't you:



G.T. said:


> ... there's no burden on these shoulders to prove the negative. ...



I gotta say, it sure looks like you.  There's your user-name, which is, in effect YOU SIGNING THAT IT WAS YOU!  Did you lie to yourself, again!???

(It is as IF this discussion is not SET IN WRITING, AND READILY AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO READ!)

LOL!  Adorable... .


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

So explaining that I have no burden to prove a negative is the same thing as saying I'm being forced to prove a negative?

Thats fuzzy math, charlie. You might want to run that one through the calculator one more time.

Oh, and by the way........


Boo!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Are you always doing this nit picky waste of time shit with your Saturdays? It seems so small world. 

It was fun and all, dont get me wrong, but gawl dang jethro. The ocd to argue over the inane could wind up costing you precious life minutes.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Are you always doing this nit picky waste of time shit with your Saturdays? It seems so small world.
> 
> It was fun and all, dont get me wrong, but gawl dang jethro. The ocd to argue over the inane could wind up costing you precious life minutes.



Yes, I am picking the specific nit, wherein you claimed something that was demonstrably FALSE, to be true.  

A nit which you apparently and erroneously felt was a demonstration of wit. 

But, as usual, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

I never claimed something that was not true.

Ever. 

I win.



Derp derp, spiddle. (Gee this is teh fun gaz)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I never claimed something that was not true.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> ...



You not only did so... you just did it AGAIN!

And with that, I AGAIN duly note your most recent concession and summarily accept such.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Your synapses misfiring is not my problem. I dont think ive ever once lost my keys, either. I win.






Again.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 16, 2014)

Anyone bored enough to teach Chester Copperpot what the words 'duly' & 'concession' mean?

Tia! ; )


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



So your defense of killing in the name of religion is a failed attempt to deflect by citing the numbers of those killed by secular entities for reasons other than religion.  

"We theists murder millions but so do the other guys." 

Pathetic. 

Theism is the bane of humankind, it always has been and it always will be.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 16, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



SOOoooo...  your need to dismiss the standing points at issue, remove them from your equation and simply insert a set of points which you fabricated from intellectual straw?

Have you actually had any success come from that?


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


America are the terrorists when it comes to the bulk of the killings in south and cental america. I have yet to see one piece of evidence refuted that Howard Zinn has brought up and thousands of others.


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


They are as leftist as Hitler is right. A totalitarian state is still a totalitarian state whether it is right or left and neither get much support from either side of the political scale. Who is the she.


----------



## Tuatara (Aug 16, 2014)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


The only ignorance I'm seeing is your twisted and absolutley innacurate details of what actually happened. I would love to see you write a paper on the Crusades and hand it in to any university professor. I guarantee you would recieve a failing grade or the professor would expire after laughing themself to death.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 17, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...




Are you trying to claim that defending US principle by killing socialist insurgents in neighboring countries is not soundly justified?

What are ya basing this on Howard?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 17, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



I'd love to see the a university professor contest my position.  

Tell ya what, you go find as many prof's as you can get here and we'll debate it.  Bring the entire US University system if ya like.  

It won't help ya get any closer to a valid argument, nor prevail in this debate, but you will have some comrades with whom ya can commensurate.  

And I think that would be nice for ya.

In the means time, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 17, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Hitler was many thing, but 'right' as never one of 'em.  Not in any sense of the word.   Histler was a fascist, OKA: a national socialist.  Which is little more than socialism with a nationalist bent.  It differs from international socialist only by its recognition that revolutionary socialism is unobtainable, thus seeks to progress toward international socialism one nation at a time.

It's the same manifest evil as any other variation of Left-think.

And FYI: There is no such thing as a right-wing totalitarian state.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 19, 2014)

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Positive atheism* (also called *strong atheism* and *hard atheism*) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.





> *Negative atheism* (also called *weak atheism* and *soft atheism*) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.



I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 19, 2014)

You could also break down Theism into Positive Theism and Negative Theism where Positive Theism would be the assertion that there is a deity and Negative Theism would be belief that there is a deity but lack of the positive assertion that there is one.

In that case, Agnosticism would encompass both Negative Atheism and Negative Theism while excluding Positive Theism and Positive Atheism.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.
> 
> I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."



Can you understand the statement "There is no Santa Claus"? or "There are no such thing as ghosts"? Because each of those takes the same form, and by your reckoning would imply full knowledge of the universe.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> Can you understand the statement "There is no Santa Claus"? or "There are no such thing as ghosts"? Because each of those takes the same form, and by your reckoning would imply full knowledge of the universe.



I agree. They are of the same form, and I feel the same about them. I believe there is no Santa Claus and I believe there are no such things as ghosts. I do not claim perfect knowledge of either. There very well may be Santa Claus or ghost-like entities somewhere in existence of which I am unaware.

There is a level of distinction that should be brought out here though. The legend of Santa Claus is pretty specific about who and what Santa Claus is and details specific physical interactions that should be present if he were to exist (presents under the tree not placed there by anyone else.) A strong disbelief in Santa Claus is pretty justifiable given the actual lack of the expected evidence.

Given very specific details of a deity it is entirely possible to strongly disbelieve in that deity without disbelieving in all deities. If a specific conception of a deity predicts physical evidence and we find a total lack of that evidence we can be justified in strongly believing that that deity does not exist. However, If the prediction does not state that the evidence will be present everywhere, given the fact that I cannot look everywhere for evidence I cannot rule out the possibility that evidence exists in a place I have not looked. I can strongly believe, but cannot_ know_ that that deity does not exist. Please note that this does not mean that I should wait for more evidence or suspend my disbelief. I should act in the way that most conforms with what I believe to be true. If evidence comes to light later that refutes my belief, I will reexamine at that point.

Do you have a logical argument that definitively proves that no deity can exist? I will certainly give it consideration if you do.



> For example, the God of classical theism is often considered to be a personal supreme being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, caring about humans and human affairs. One might be a positive atheist for such a deity (see problem of evil), while being a negative atheist with respect to a deistic conception of God by rejecting belief in such a deity but not explicitly asserting it to be false.


Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> I agree. They are of the same form, and *I feel the same about them*. I believe there is no Santa Claus and I believe there are no such things as ghosts. I do not claim perfect knowledge of either. There very well may be Santa Claus or ghost-like entities somewhere in existence of which I am unaware.
> 
> There is a level of distinction that should be brought out here though. The legend of Santa Claus is pretty specific about who and what Santa Claus is and details specific physical interactions that should be present if he were to exist (presents under the tree not placed there by anyone else.) A strong disbelief in Santa Claus is pretty justifiable given the actual lack of the expected evidence.
> 
> ...



Of course not. My point is that the atheist position - even the 'strong' atheist position - is no more "faith-based" than the claim that there are no such thing as ghosts, yet despite your claim above, it seems many religious people DO feel differently about them. Even to the point of claiming that atheism is, itself, a religion.

It's as if they want to "level the playing field" and equate the convictions of atheists to their own religious beliefs. Which never made much sense to me, honestly, because it seems to me the core spiritual power of religious faith its extra-rational quality. Why would they want to compare it mundane rational doubt?


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> Of course not. My point is that the atheist position - even the 'strong' atheist position - is no more "faith-based" than the claim that there are no such thing as ghosts, yet despite your claim above, it seems many religious people DO feel differently about them. Even to the point of claiming that atheism is, itself, a religion.
> 
> It's as if they want to "level the playing field" and equate the convictions of atheists to their own religious beliefs. Which never made much sense to me, honestly, because it seems to me the core spiritual power of religious faith its extra-rational quality. Why would they want to compare it mundane rational doubt?



I definitely wouldn't call Atheism faith. I can understand in some ways why some people consider Atheism as kind of a religion based solely on how dedicated some Atheists seem to their belief system and try to convince others of that system. I don't personally see it that way, but I can understand that perspective in some ways.

Personally, I will fault nobody who believes there is no God. I do take exception to those who claim that such is an incontrovertible fact. You can't prove that something does not exist. It just isn't possible to do that. That doesn't mean you have to accept that God does exist or that there is even anything more than the remotest possibility that there is a God. You should absolutely live your life in accordance to your belief that there is no such thing as God. Doing otherwise would be betraying what you believe to be reality. No sane person can act against what they actually believe to be true. However, claiming to know for a fact that there is no God just makes people look ignorant in my opinion.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 19, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> I definitely wouldn't call Atheism faith. I can understand in some ways why some people consider Atheism as kind of a religion based solely on how dedicated some Atheists seem to their belief system and try to convince others of that system. I don't personally see it that way, but I can understand that perspective in some ways.
> 
> Personally, I will fault nobody who believes there is no God. I do take exception to those who claim that such is an incontrovertible fact. You can't prove that something does not exist. It just isn't possible to do that. That doesn't mean you have to accept that God does exist or that there is even anything more than the remotest possibility that there is a God. You should absolutely live your life in accordance to your belief that there is no such thing as God. Doing otherwise would be betraying what you believe to be reality. No sane person can act against what they actually believe to be true. However, claiming to know for a fact that there is no God just makes people look ignorant in my opinion.



Atheism is considered a religion by jurisprudence...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 20, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:
> 
> Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...




Well said...


----------



## oldfart (Aug 20, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:
> 
> Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...




Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion.  For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities:  theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism.  The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means.  For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God".  The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way.  Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists".  My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.  

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 20, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:
> ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 20, 2014)

God is the force of nature.  One nature, one God.  Simple stuff.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:
> ...



Something along those lines is brought up on the wikipedia page I linked to. Non-cognitivism is, I think, a form of Negative Atheism. A person who either chooses not to think about deities or who has never heard of any deity, does not believe in any deity. That person doesn't assert that there is not any deity, they simply do not think about deities at all (or at least not for any significant amount of time.) This is also known as Implicit Atheism as opposed to Explicit Atheism.

Anyone who does not believe that all deities exist can fit into one of these categories of Atheism with respect to any given description of a deity. To your example, I don't think many people believe in Jupiter any more. Even among Christian sects, the God one sect describes is not necessarily the same God that another sect describes. Some of the most vehement disputes I have witnessed about God were between two Christians.

That said, unless you are "Atheist" with regards to all deities (or at least every one you had ever heard or thought of) you would not describe yourself as Atheist in general.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Convince atheists that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)



For that to make any sense, you first need to specifically point to any atheists who stated that they are the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

If you can't or won't, you ought to apologize for engaging in dishonest trolling.

You too, MD, since you've directly supported that OP.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:
> ...



I forgot to mention your last line. "Do you believe in God?" is, as you say, a very undefined question. If I describe God to you, then ask if you believe in that God, then you have more specific information to base your answer on. In essence, If I give X a definition, then I can ask you if you belive in X (or something similar.) For example, if I ask instead the question, "Do you believe that there could exist somewhere an entity whose cognitive abilities far exceed our own?" I have then asked you a question that is at the same time more defined and less specific. Based on questions like that you can flesh out a more full understanding of what you believe is possible, what you believe is probable, and what you simply believe is.

In reality there are so many degrees of belief that the topic is really hard to nail down to "Do you believe in God." For example, "I do not believe that God exists," and "I believe that God does not exist," are two very different statements.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 20, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.



Strong positive atheism in regards to specific gods is quite rational.

For example, the Christian god's attributes lead to unresolvable logical contradictions. Therefore, I know that the Christian god can not exist, therefore reason states that I should be a strong positive atheist regarding the Christian god.

As far as other gods go, the default state of belief for _anything_ is "no", until evidence for it is presented. It would not be logical or reasonable for gods get a special exemption that the rest of the universe doesn't get. Therefore, until evidence is presented for such gods, the default belief state for all gods is "no". That is, atheism. Agnosticism can exist side-by-side with such atheism, but it is not the same as the atheism.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Convince atheists that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...



I believe, and I could be wrong here, that the OP was making the assertion that Atheists do not believe that there are any deities (i.e. higher forms of intelligence.) To convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a deity would be to convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a higher form of intelligence than humans.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.
> ...



Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?

The default state of belief for any thing is not "believing that that thing does not exist" it is "not believing that that thing exists." To believe that something does not exist you have to have been convinced that it does not exist. Otherwise you simply lack belief that it does exist. This is the same state you are in if you have never heard of that thing. And incidentally, you also lack belief that it does _not_ exist.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.
> ...


I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."


----------



## billyerock1991 (Aug 21, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe.  (Impossible.)
> ...


the fact that I don't beliece in a god, to be truthful I just don't use the Idea of a god to live my life, to answer my questions in life  ... or use the thought of quoting from god's book to look for the answers to the questions I have....


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?



Perfect omniscience contradicts free will, yet the deity is said to allow free will. If the deity knows 100% what I will do, I must do it. Moving the deity "outside time" just muddies the waters and doesn't change anything.

Infinite power combined with perfect omniscience means the deity deliberately allowed evil into the world, and that contradicts omnibenevolence. "Allowing for free will" is no excuse, because an infinitely-powerful deity could have jiggered a way to allow for free will without evil.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."



I see atheism/theism and agnosticism/certainty as two different categories, independent of each other. That is, one could be:

Agnostic and atheist
Certain and atheist
Agnostic and theist
Certain and theist


----------



## G.T. (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."
> ...


I can vibe with that.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?
> ...



How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way? Do I take away her free will by knowing beforehand how she will react when her sister says something stupid to her? That is the same thing as saying that knowing something will fall when dropped equals causing something to fall when dropped. The person who knows this does not cause the thing to fall. Gravity does.

For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?
> ...



We only experience one facet of time, due to our brains being 'tuned' to our 'time'.  Think of it as only having one cable channel.  If all your ancestors and all of your personal experience was through one cable channel, it would likely be difficult to imagine two.   "Why would I want another channel?", "What would ya do with the other one?",  "What purpose would it serve?" ... and so on.

But there is no reason to believe that time does not have infinite 'frequencies' and were your brain to change channels, just ever so slightly and your perception of the universe around you would be completely different, how you were perceived by others, would be completely different.  

Where your brain was able to consider time more quickly than our time, the world around you would appear slower, it would appear that everything else was in S L O W  M O T I O N . . .   Even faster and the world would appear frozen.  Likewise, if it considered its environment slower, the world around you would appear to be moving in Fast Forward.  A little faster and objects that are animated in our time, would by imperceptible to you.

These are inaccurate terms, of course, but they help in understanding the concept.

A being who had the means to scan the spectrum of time, would have absolutely no problem, being everywhere, at once, because time and space are correlated somehow, in ways we can barely comprehend.

But, I can tell you, in my own experience, I've experienced this 'shift' in time.  I had a life after death experience when I was in my 20s and I can tell you that it is all somehow tied to time.  I have't the slightest idea how or why, I just know that 'out there', relates as much to time as it dos to space.  

God is... that's not even a debatable point.  What makes it 'feel' debatable is our own limited means to understand the universe around us.  Which is fine, because we're not designed to understand, at least while we're locked up 'in here'.

Good discussion.  So solid insights coming in, from a good number of folks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 21, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



The anti-theist is a wholly subjective personality; strong sociopathic tendencies.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way?



That's not perfect omniscience, that's making an educated guess.

If god _knows_ I will sing Yankee Doodle Dandy on the streetcorner tomorrow at 7AM, I _must_ do it. I might think I'm doing it freely, but I still have no choice in the matter. If I did differently, the being would not be perfectly omniscient. The free will I think I have would be an illusion, since my course is absolutely predestined. The same can not be said about your wife, as she may surprise you.

Where_k uses both of what I call the "infinite universes" explanation and the "God is outside time" explanation, but I think that's just muddying the waters. I am not outside time, and I'm stuck in one universe as far as I can see, so my actions are still predetermined if a being with perfect omniscience knows my future actions.



> For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.



Perfect goodness and compassion. What I'm talking about is generally referred to as "The Problem of Evil". There's far more of it you can read about it than I can write here, if you want to look it up. Basically, a being with infinite knowledge and power would not need to allow evil to exist, yet it does, so it can't be perfect good.

The Jews are more sensible on such matters. They don't assign the omni-attributes to God, so they don't run into such problems.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Aug 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way?
> ...



Not necessarily.  God knows your circumstances, the issues at hand and your choices.  The odds are that you do them all and are judged for each decision.  



mamooth said:


> Where_k uses both of what I call the "infinite universes" explanation and the "God is outside time" explanation, but I think that's just muddying the waters. I am not outside time, and I'm stuck in one universe as far as I can see, so my actions are still predetermined if a being with perfect omniscience knows my future actions.


  Your stream of consciousness is here... yes.  It is likely also in an infinite number of 'here(s)', playing out every possible scenario.  In one you're likely the salt of the earth, in another you probably made Hitler blush... . 

I agree with you that the possibility serves no purpose in the 'here'... except to say that you DO have choices and God wants you to recognize the laws he has established in nature for you to live by, to respect those laws and to prosper and be happy for having adhered to them. 



mamooth said:


> > For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nature's perfection is in the balance... from which our choices are culled.  There is no potential for perfect good, where there does not exist perfect evil.  

What God does not seem to have an interest in, is sympathy.  There is right and there is wrong.  We have been given the instinct and means for objective and subjective reasoning.  Where you consider God's will, you reason objectively, having sought that which exists beyond yourself. Such choices neve fail to bring the highest, most coveted rewards; Ie: Happiness.

Where we consider our own desires, we reason subjectively, which never fails to sum to result in the triumvirate of evil: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe; Ie: Misery.

It all seems pretty simple... .


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> That's not perfect omniscience, that's making an educated guess.
> 
> If god _knows_ I will sing Yankee Doodle Dandy on the streetcorner tomorrow at 7AM, I _must_ do it. I might think I'm doing it freely, but I still have no choice in the matter. If I did differently, the being would not be perfectly omniscient. The free will I think I have would be an illusion, since my course is absolutely predestined. The same can not be said about your wife, as she may surprise you.
> 
> ...


Perfect omniscience is nothing but the perfect educated guess. Imagine a pool table. You have a cue and are about to take a shot. If I know all the variables involved I can tell you with precision exactly what will happen when you hit the ball. Did I make it happen by knowing it would happen? Knowledge of something does not cause that thing to happen.

The problem of evil presupposes that evil bring present in this world outweighs any good that could come of it. Does a parent always stop a child from being hurt even when a small amount of pain can teach that child an important life lesson that cannot be learned any other way? In infinity life on earth is less than an instant is in our perception. If God is infinite, and we are infinite after this life, then evil here is nothing in the grand scheme.

The point in all this is that any "proof" of non-existence hinges on very specific conditions. Changing even one of those conditions even slightly renders the proof null. You can disprove the existence of a God that is incapable of allowing harm but does allow harm, but that proof does not apply to a God that would allow small harm for greater good.


----------



## Mount Brocken (Aug 23, 2014)

I have always been fascinated by the _burden of proof_ clause in a debate.  For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist.  And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists.  If this is the case, then why isn't there a _burden of proof_ on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 23, 2014)

Mount Brocken said:


> I have always been fascinated by the _burden of proof_ clause in a debate.  For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist.  And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists.  If this is the case, then why isn't there a _burden of proof_ on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?



To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.


----------



## Mount Brocken (Aug 23, 2014)

FuzzyCat said:


> So.....would any of you consider "Mother Earth" as God or A God?


I would think that God is any sort of being whose existence is a.) purely metaphysical and b.) a being whose reason and ability to exist emerges or stems from itself/himself/herself.


----------



## Mount Brocken (Aug 23, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.


This is typically not how it works though.  For an atheist doesn't generally find that he or she has to disprove God, since saying God exists is an assertion that has to follow any set of qualifying logically compelling claims.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 23, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> > Mathbud1 said:
> ...



First, thanks for a well thought out response!  Non-cognitivism is an outgrowth of logic rather than philosophy of religion.  As such, it makes no judgment of a proposition that might be implied but is not stated.  So I don't think it is a form of Negative Atheism.  My personal faith is a form of philosophical Taoism which holds that personified deities (those that exhibit human emotions and characteristics such as favoritism, anger, pride, susceptability to cajolery, etc) are human constructs designed for social control.  They are a sociological phenomena, not a religious one.  So my personal beliefs are Negative Atheist toward almost all deities in your framework.  But that is not a universal characteristic of a non-cognitivist position with regard to any particular proposition of god-talk.  



Mathbud1 said:


> Anyone who does not believe that all deities exist can fit into one of these categories of Atheism with respect to any given description of a deity. To your example, I don't think many people believe in Jupiter any more. Even among Christian sects, the God one sect describes is not necessarily the same God that another sect describes. Some of the most vehement disputes I have witnessed about God were between two Christians.



My experience is very similar to yours.  There is more dispute over the "true" God than over the general proposition of the existence of a deity.  



Mathbud1 said:


> That said, unless you are "Atheist" with regards to all deities (or at least every one you had ever heard or thought of) you would not describe yourself as Atheist in general.



I do not consider myself an atheist in a general sense.  My objection is to a large class of proposed deities, and to some others I am a non-cognitivist.  I see no harm in the "Clock-maker God" of the Deists of the 16th century, nor of the "smaller gods" of hearth and home.  No one ever went to war over these "gods", although quite a few witches were burned for believing in them (but that is a reflection on those who hunted, not the hunted).  

I would finish with one note.  When you ask the wrong question, you usually get bad results.  The Abrahamic religions ask "What does God want us to do?" and has therefore spawned a great deal of evil in the world.  One is hard pressed to conceive of a crime against humanity not committed in the name of those religions.  And of course those faiths are mutually exclusive in many cases and in a state of violent conflict against each other.  In contrast, the Eastern traditions (Vedic religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism and so forth) are less exclusive.  A Chinese proverb states that every Chinese wears a Confucian hat, a Taoist robe, and Buddhist sandals.  Each of these faiths starts from a different question, "How should a wise person live their life and treat other people?"


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 23, 2014)

Mount Brocken said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.
> ...



But that only matters in practice if I am trying to convince an Atheist that God exists. If I am not trying to convince anyone, why would I need to prove anything?

If an Atheist wants to convince me that God does not exist, is he simply going to say, "if you cannot prove that God does exist, he must not exist?" That statement does not make any sense logically, so if he is trying to base his position on science and rationality, he has failed. Failing to prove that something does exist does not prove that it does not exist. The person trying to effect a change is the person who has to form a cogent argument. An Atheist trying to convince a Theist does not necessarily need to prove that God does not exist or cannot exist, but they do need to present _some_ kind of reasoning to change the Theists opinion.


----------



## Mount Brocken (Aug 23, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> But that only matters in practice if I am trying to convince an Atheist that God exists. If I am not trying to convince anyone, why would I need to prove anything?
> 
> If an Atheist wants to convince me that God does not exist, is he simply going to say, "if you cannot prove that God does exist, he must not exist?" That statement does not make any sense logically, so if he is trying to base his position on science and rationality, he has failed. Failing to prove that something does exist does not prove that it does not exist. The person trying to effect a change is the person who has to form a cogent argument. An Atheist trying to convince a Theist does not necessarily need to prove that God does not exist or cannot exist, but they do need to present _some_ kind of reasoning to change the Theists opinion.


I don't deny this, I am merely pointing out that usually atheists, even when publicly denying theism, claims burden of proof since they are _denying_ what theists propose.  They say they claim nothing _until_ a claim of something like a God is presented.  

I proposed that typically atheists deny God's existence on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence.  However, since empirical evidence is the only evidence they embrace, and empiricism assumes there is an objective reality, _IF_ one were to question the presence of an objective reality _THEN_ the burden of proof would rest on them.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 23, 2014)

Mount Brocken said:


> I have always been fascinated by the _burden of proof_ clause in a debate.  For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist.  And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists.  If this is the case, then why isn't there a _burden of proof_ on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?



I suggest you perform the following experiment:  drink four beers and refrain from urinating for twelve hours.  Just tell yourself that the information from your senses is not real.  The argument you propound is specious.  We must all live as if the information of our senses is generally correct, no matter what philosophical arguments we chose to entertain ourselves with.


----------



## Mount Brocken (Aug 23, 2014)

Firstly, I do not drink.  Secondly, just because corresponding pains with corresponding actions such as drinking does not mean there is a thing like matter apart from the brain.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 23, 2014)

oldfart said:


> Mathbud1 said:
> 
> 
> > oldfart said:
> ...



I love good discussion.

Negative Atheism as decribed in the Wikipedia article I linked to is really simply a lack of belief _for_ any given deity. I don't think it is the best name for it because Atheism implies belief _against_ deities to most people. Realistically a lack of belief in any given thing is where everyone starts. Nobody can believe in a deity until they can conceptualize a deity in their own mind. You can't believe that any deity does exist until you believe some kind of deity could exist, and you can't believe that some kind of deity could exist until you are aware of the concept of a deity existing. Even if you do become aware of the concept of a deity/deities and believe that a deity or deities could exist, you may not actually believe that any deities do exist much less that a specific deity exists. That is the state that many people call Agnostic, but non-cognitivism fits in that state too. If you don't care to put any thought into the concept of deities beyond acknowledging that the concept exists, then you won't ever leave that state. You will remain not believing for any deity and not believing against any deity. But even if you do give it a lot of thought you may not ever gain belief for or against deities in general or specific.

The reason many people call Atheism a faith or religion is that many Atheists express a belief or "knowledge" that deities do not exist. To express that, they have to have gone beyond merely lacking a belief _for_ deities. They have to have gained belief _against_ deities. They have gone from, "I do not believe God exists" to "I believe God does not exist" or simply "God does not exist."

Asking what God wants ignores the more important questions of why he would want it and why should I care that he wants it. If God wants you to do something just because he has asked you to do it, that God does not make any sense to me. If God wants you to do soemthing because it is good, for your own good, and for the good of others, that makes sense to me. Then you don't need to try to find out what God wants you to do. You have to find out what is good and do that because it is good and not because God wants you to do it. In essence you need to find "how... a wise person [should] live their life and treat other people." Anyone who uses _that_ God as an excuse to do evil is in for a world of hurt if and when they ever come face to face with him. A God that wants you to blindly follow is not a God that I want to follow. The only God I think worthy of following is a God that wants you to do good for the sake of doing good, and who wants you to use your own mind and will to find, recognize, and choose those good things. A God who wants you to seek the truth, to seek the good, to grow, to learn. Empty obedience is worthless to me.


----------



## dblack (Aug 23, 2014)

Mathbud1 said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> > Mathbud1 said:
> ...



I really don't see most atheists trying to convince anyone that gods don't exist. Pretty much any discussion of the matter is in response to the claims, or demands, of theists. And even then, most of atheists are content to respond with "Cool story, bro!", and leave it that. It isn't until religious folks start proselytizing or otherwise pushing their faith on others that it becomes an issue.


----------



## Mathbud1 (Aug 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> I really don't see most atheists trying to convince anyone that gods don't exist. Pretty much any discussion of the matter is in response to the claims, or demands, of theists. And even then, most of atheists are content to respond with "Cool story, bro!", and leave it that. It isn't until religious folks start proselytizing or otherwise pushing their faith on others that it becomes an issue.



In that case the burden definitely lies with the proselytizer. They are trying to do the convincing.

I, unfortunately, have seen many Atheists who are hell-bent (pun intended) on convincing Theists that they are absolutely and unequivocally delusional.

EDIT: as in most cases it is a vocal minority who do such.


----------

