Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

That would be beyond God's control, lol. Don't blame Him for diversity of thought.

I don't believe in him but the diversity is because the bible is so vague, unclear and contradictory. Since Christians attribute the teachings of the bible to God then yes God would be responsible for any ambiguity found within it.

We do have free will after all.

Even when it comes to God's law?

The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God.

This makes no sense. I will allow you to explain yourself on this.

Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here. For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power.

I didn't claim it was new. Nice deflection. There have also been people like yourself rejecting one man's hugher power for your own higher power.

So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right?

The belief in a higher power or a god. That is easy. Fear, Child indoctrination and manipulation, lack of responsibility, tradition, comfort and assurance on death and the afterlife... many many more reasons.

The answer is simple, natural selection. It is hard wired into us.

No, the fear of death is the main reason. Nothing else.

Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet. There's really no telling.

keep telling yourself that

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it isn't true.

Yes, we have free will even when it comes to God's law. We have free will to choose between good and evil. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind. It promotes order and harmony. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success. Lack of virtue, not so much. Failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. So while we are free to choose between the two, our actions will have consequences. He would not give us a way to figure out when we were doing good versus doing bad and rationalizing we were doing good.

I did not claim you said it wasn't new nor was it meant as a deflection. It was meant to show that what you believed invalidated God, really validates God.

You are seeing what you want to see. I suggest you go research the morality progression by Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg. What you are describing are the 1st 4 stages of the progression. What the Bible and religion teaches is the last two stages of the progression. Of course, I can understand your confusion in reading the Bible. The Bible is effectively a how to Book. How to live and how not to live. It can be confusing. It is also an account of a people who cycled between remembering His ways and forgetting His ways and what happens to them as they bounce back and forth.

Birth is a forgetting and death is a remembering. As you approach death, it will be made clear to you that He was always the matrix. Science tells us that the energy and matter that make up you was created when the universe was created.

Of course I will keep telling myself that because I believe it. It isn't your time yet and it may never be your time. No one knows but God.

 

[Tuatara]

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Yep. Killing is wrong but we will still do it. No need to justify that it was right. It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men. It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men. It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral. If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man. If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are. It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil. If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.

So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews? Really? That would have been moral?

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

Wrong again. Atheism isn't like religion. But the human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists.

 

[Czernobog]

So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews? Really? That would have been moral?

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

Yet, it was the absolute moralism of Ding's that led him to insist that going to war to stop Hitler was wrong (immoral).

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers. None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

Yet, it was the absolute moralism of Ding's that led him to insist that going to war to stop Hitler was wrong (immoral).

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's his problem.

 

[ding]

The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing. Why? Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so. Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options. That is the highest standard.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

Yet, it was the absolute moralism of Ding's that led him to insist that going to war to stop Hitler was wrong (immoral).

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yep. That's right and you still could not grasp my logic or if you did, you have no valid response to it. Let me clarify it further for you... when man justifies his behaviors on what is moral rather than the highest possible standard, he has normalized his deviance to that standard and is apt to continue to move the goal posts. I did not say we should not go to war to stop Hitler. I said we should not hold ourselves as being morally righteous in doing so. That is how tyranny starts. One inch at a time. One deviation from the standard at a time. Unfortunately, pea brain size talking monkeys must be spoon fed crap to validate their actions even though no real validation is required. We could have just as easily said that us going off to kill other men is wrong but we are going to do it anyway. We will feel bad for doing it, but we will do evil to stop a greater evil. Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you? First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral. What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good. I do. As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right. I adhere to a higher standard than you do. The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral. Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.

That is a lie. It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong. In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide. How would you justify sitting back and allowing that? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.

The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.

Yet, it was the absolute moralism of Ding's that led him to insist that going to war to stop Hitler was wrong (immoral).

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

That's his problem.

Actually it was the missing piece of the puzzle for me. I love solving puzzles.

 

[Tuatara]

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

That would be beyond God's control, lol. Don't blame Him for diversity of thought.

I don't believe in him but the diversity is because the bible is so vague, unclear and contradictory. Since Christians attribute the teachings of the bible to God then yes God would be responsible for any ambiguity found within it.

We do have free will after all.

Even when it comes to God's law?

The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God.

This makes no sense. I will allow you to explain yourself on this.

Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here. For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power.

I didn't claim it was new. Nice deflection. There have also been people like yourself rejecting one man's hugher power for your own higher power.

So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right?

The belief in a higher power or a god. That is easy. Fear, Child indoctrination and manipulation, lack of responsibility, tradition, comfort and assurance on death and the afterlife... many many more reasons.

The answer is simple, natural selection. It is hard wired into us.

No, the fear of death is the main reason. Nothing else.

Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet. There's really no telling.

keep telling yourself that

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it isn't true.

Yes, we have free will even when it comes to God's law. We have free will to choose between good and evil.

No one on earth chooses to follow the complete Law of the Bible. Do you consider all people evil or is it OK just to pick and choose certain passages in the Bible?

Of course that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.

Consequences for what? Be specific.

Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind.

Yet in traditional Christian angelology, Virtue is the seventh highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy.

It promotes order and harmony. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success. Lack of virtue, not so much. Failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure.

Ones interpretation of success and failure are different from others. There are people on this planet who are ruthless, corrupt, greedy and irresponsible and yet they are idolized by many.

So while we are free to choose between the two, our actions will have consequences.

Like I said. the consequences are always different. Look at it this way. Most people consider slavery to be wrong. Today owning a slave would be considered a failed behaviour. There was once a time for a lot of Christian devotees when owning a slave was considered a successful behaviour.

He would not give us a way to figure out when we were doing good versus doing bad and rationalizing we were doing good.

But you do know when you are doing good without God. How many people throw rocks at people for growing improper rows in their garden. Do we stone to death anyone who works on Sunday? Of course not. We as humans figured that these bible laws were wrong on our own.

I did not claim you said it wasn't new nor was it meant as a deflection. It was meant to show that what you believed invalidated God, really validates God.

Sorry still doesn't make any sense. Does anyone else know what he's talking about? Anyone?

You are seeing what you want to see.

No, most atheists would welcome the thought of an afterlife. Maybe not the exact version your religion has to offer although I know some do but you are flat out wrong on that. Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.
[/QUOTE]I suggest you go research the morality progression by Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg. What you are describing are the 1st 4 stages of the progression. What the Bible and religion teaches is the last two stages of the progression.[/QUOTE]I will read any book of his after you read and Dawkins or Hitchens. Deal.

Of course, I can understand your confusion in reading the Bible. The Bible is effectively a how to Book. How to live and how not to live. It can be confusing. It is also an account of a people who cycled between remembering His ways and forgetting His ways and what happens to them as they bounce back and forth.

Get back to me on this when you cover the part above about working on Sundays.

Birth is a forgetting and death is a remembering.

No. Birth is the beginning of life and death is the end of life. It's really that simple.

As you approach death, it will be made clear to you that He was always the matrix. Science tells us that the energy and matter that make up you was created when the universe was created.

Of course I will keep telling myself that because I believe it. It isn't your time yet and it may never be your time. No one knows but God.

I'm not here to change your beliefs. In fact I'm happy that you are comfortable with your beliefs. Most atheists were once religious themselves, so to say it may not be their time in condescending.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist

I understand. However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position? That is my point, atheists do not argue that God can't exist; only that God doesn't exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

Not my job. You want to prove that God exists, you find the objective evidence, and present it.

I don't really care enough to make it my job to convince you. Sorry. I have proven to myself that God exists. You don't accept it. I'm cool with that. I don't need to validate my beliefs through your non-belief. That's what you are doing here, brother.

For anyone to imagine humanity even begins to be capable of perceiving, let alone understanding the totality of what comprises a universe, shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life. Not to mention being devoid of any self awareness.

 

[Tuatara]

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

Wrong again. Atheism isn't like religion. But the human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists.

I didn't claim Atheism was a religion. That claim was made by Christians in this forum. Please provide some sort of evidence for blind dogmatic faith by atheists. I will be waiting.

 

[Tuatara]

Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.

I have no problem with someone saying "I believe in God although I cannot prove his existence." What I have a problem with is one claims to have proof of God's existence and cannot provide any.

 

[ding]

And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist

I understand. However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position? That is my point, atheists do not argue that God can't exist; only that God doesn't exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

Not my job. You want to prove that God exists, you find the objective evidence, and present it.

I don't really care enough to make it my job to convince you. Sorry. I have proven to myself that God exists. You don't accept it. I'm cool with that. I don't need to validate my beliefs through your non-belief. That's what you are doing here, brother.

For anyone to imagine humanity even begins to be capable of perceiving, let alone understanding the totality of what comprises a universe, shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life. Not to mention being devoid of any self awareness.

I don't believe it is possible for humans to understand the nature of God. That would be like asking ants to understand the nature of humans. Suffice it to say, this is why there are slight differences in the form of God in the major religions, but similarities on the teaching of His Ways. I could talk more on this but will leave it alone for now because what I really want to tell you is that my journey started with a notional belief but was validated by my self awareness and understanding of how my life unfolded. I couldn't help but notice how everything I thought was good was really bad and how everything I thought was bad was really good. Then I started finding myself in situations where key pieces of knowledge starting showing up in the most unexpected ways - nothing to do with the Bible - and with each new piece of information the puzzle started to fill itself in. When I didn't understand how one part fit I would set it aside. Without looking for it I would get new information and the piece would fit perfectly and reveal a new mystery. My point here is that it really was self realization which led me to my beliefs and I can only credit the Holy Spirit for that. I should not know what I know. I'm not that religious.

 

[ding]

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.

I have no problem with someone saying "I believe in God although I cannot prove his existence." What I have a problem with is one claims to have proof of God's existence and cannot provide any.

I have proven it to myself. Is that Ok?

 

[ding]

Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.

You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.

Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?

Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.

Wrong again. Atheism isn't like religion. But the human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists.

I didn't claim Atheism was a religion. That claim was made by Christians in this forum. Please provide some sort of evidence for blind dogmatic faith by atheists. I will be waiting.

Yes. I was one of those people, but let me clarify that. Atheism in and of itself is not a religion. It only manifests itself as a religion when it becomes dogmatic like a religion and its adherents act like it is a religion. That does not apply to the vast majority of atheists most of whom have no interest in God or religion at all, but it does apply to militant atheists who attack other religions like a rival religion attacks a fellow rival religion. Protestants and Catholics come to mind as well as Sunnis and Shiites. I have posted the dogmatic faith of these militant atheists. It is listed at the bottom of every one of my posts. It is not something new. It is not something I made up. It has been observed and discussed for over 100 years.

 

[sealybobo]

I never said I hated atheists. You're a liar. And if you'll recall I started out saying atheists were liars. You said you recognize the possibility of a god, that makes you an agnostic. That's English. Learn it.

You're attitude towards atheists is clear in your misrepresentation of who atheists are, and your assumption that you know how "all athiests" think. Just because you want to dishonestly pretend like you have no animosity, it doesn't mean that the animosity isn't obvious.

Like to suggest we're all socialists or commies. Tell that to Ayn rand

Ayn Rand was a conservative. You're not.

Sooo...you're okay with atheists...just so long as they are conservatives?

No. I'm ok with atheists either way. I couldn't care less because I know there is a law of compensation at work which will eventually correct all errors. It is only a matter of time. I have no preference for an outcome because I have peace. I accept things the way they are. You don't and I doubt you ever will until right before you die. Each of us are on our own journey. We collide with each other, yet our accountabilities stay with us. Nothing you do can harm me. Only I can harm myself. I have a soul and I have my faith. What do you have?

I am alive (have soul) and apparently I have a faith too according to you. My faith provides me with comfort too. The truth is the way

 

[sealybobo]

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

We can never know what was before the big bang. What we do know is either time and space are infinite. Either thats true or there is no infinite God either.

Our universe is but one little universe. Our sun is but one little star. Our planet is just one little planet.

There was a time not too long ago we didn't know we were just one planet surrounding one sun. We thought we were special and that there must be a purpose. There is. Live well and prosper

we don't even know for sure there was a big bang

Do you know what evidence exists that proves that the universe is not infinite?

You mean our one little universe? No it is not infinite. It's just one little universe. You are correct here.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

That's why I'm an agnostic atheist

No. You are not.

Yes I am because I admit you can't know either way but I lean towards not believing there is a God.

 

[BreezeWood]

And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist

I understand. However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position? That is my point, atheists do not argue that God can't exist; only that God doesn't exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

Not my job. You want to prove that God exists, you find the objective evidence, and present it.

I don't really care enough to make it my job to convince you. Sorry. I have proven to myself that God exists. You don't accept it. I'm cool with that. I don't need to validate my beliefs through your non-belief. That's what you are doing here, brother.

For anyone to imagine humanity even begins to be capable of perceiving, let alone understanding the totality of what comprises a universe, shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life. Not to mention being devoid of any self awareness.

.

shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life.

as the vanity of self reflection ...