My Fellow Atheists, We Aren't Responsible

[rdean]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

People who sit and "debate" mysticism and the occult are just as bad as those that let that man made nonsense run their lives.

 

[Anguille]

What other resource do you have beyond luck?

The comfort in knowing the truth. Comfort is a resource.

How do you use comfort as a means of accomplishing anything?

When you are unencumbered by superstition, you see things more clearly and are more effective in everything you do.

 

[Synthaholic]

The comfort in knowing the truth. Comfort is a resource.

How do you use comfort as a means of accomplishing anything?

When you are unencumbered by superstition, you see things more clearly and are more effective in everything you do.

I stepped on a crack today, then called my mother. She says her back is fine!

 

[Synthaholic]

Marauder, I understand your point, despite your claims to the contrary. You want me to pack up my atheistic beliefs, and live happily amongst the rest of the world. You want me to respect my position, and the positions of others.

I get it. You don't see a need for conflict on the matter. And, in your opinion, conflict instigated by the atheist represents an unnecessary attack, and I'm sure you believe the opposite to be true. Besides, why attack when you can just live and respect one another? Right?

I however, do see a need to confront claims that, if true, represent a threat to the fundamental means by which a human discovers knowledge - reason.

The concept of God - a being of supernatural characteristics - if in fact exists, represents that threat. This is why I speak out.

Also keep in mind my original post - that it is the theist which makes a claim. The atheist refuses that claim since it rests on no evidence. So when I, as an atheist, speak out against the unsubstantiated claims made by theists, it is not an attack, but a defense.

Bottom line is you Fundie Athiests aren't happy with allowing those who believe to practice their Constitutional right to do so...

Somehow their faith threatens you and the future of mankind...

How narrow minded of you...

^^^ One who completely gets it.

...up the ass.

 

[Douger]

Atheists, like religious fucks, are morons.
Neither one can rationally prove their stance on the matter.
We will all know ( or not) shortly after that last heart beat.....
In my mind there will be something, but my thoughts are irrelevant to facts and reality.

 

[eots]

atheist are boring

 

[Newby]

The comfort in knowing the truth. Comfort is a resource.

How do you use comfort as a means of accomplishing anything?

When you are unencumbered by superstition, you see things more clearly and are more effective in everything you do.

Says who? You?

 

[Dr.House]

Why must willfully ignorant USMB members like HouseGimp troll Atheist threads spewing their vile hate? No one says HouseGimp can not be an ignorant asshole. If he wants to believe in the booger man or an invisible all seeing..all knowing creator being ...I say fine!

I'm just glad he doesn't say he is an atheist. That would leave a stain on atheism.

Huggy, stop following me around you low IQ turd...

It's uber creepy...

 

[Dr.House]

Bottom line is you Fundie Athiests aren't happy with allowing those who believe to practice their Constitutional right to do so...

Somehow their faith threatens you and the future of mankind...

How narrow minded of you...

^^^ One who completely gets it.

...up the ass.

Maybe you and Huggy should get a room....

....or a cage....

 

[Anguille]

atheist are boring

I have to admit. Atheism is cut and dry. Religions have more drama.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tetracide:
Thank you for your sane responses, amid the more colorful side comments decorating this thread.

1. First, the reason I bring up prayer is that it can prove a lot of the same "practical applications" of believing in God and Jesus, without requiring all that added theology.

One book I recommend by Agnes Sanford equates God with "Nature" or "Life".
So as long as we agree to focus on how this energy in life or nature works,
we can agree what are the practical applications that can be proven to work.
And there is no need to argue about how we symbolize or express this nature.

2. Secondly, you keep presupposing or claiming that prayer cannot be measured.
Even thoughts in the brain can be measured as energy.
And medical and technical advances are providing better means of detection and measurement of energy, at more and more sensitive levels.

3. Third you ask if God is going to be credited with the healing is God also blamed for the lack of healing or death. In a way, yes, if you are talking about "God" in terms of "univesal laws of nature." The same nature that allows the body to heal itself, to grow and seek survival also causes the body to die if that process is obstructed by diseased conditions.
If there is an intelligent Godhead then this Godhead must still obey the laws of nature and science created in the world. So these same laws apply to both life and death, if you want to define causality that way.

I believe this view of God as in the Laws of Nature would satisfy your standard that anything which occurs must be explicable by the laws of nature/physics/science and cannot just suddenly reinvent or be contrary with how the world works. I totally agree with that.

In general, I do believe that the universal truth/laws we can agree upon and thus can prove to be consistent with what we see and believe about the world, can be expressed
in both theistic and nontheistic ways and still point to the same source of truth/life or God.

We don't have to express it the same way; and certainly don't need to argue whose way of expressing it, even personifying it, is supreme or the right way. It depends on the context. When I am talking with a Christian audience, I would use that language. When I am addressing a scientist or atheist I would not use the Bible, but use science or other practical applications that do have relevance and meaning, and can be tangibly proven.

the same amount of proof or processing it would take to reach agreement on the issue of prayer or spiritual healing woudl satisfy the same questions or issues as dealing with God directly.

It is like proving a mini-lemma, and then plugging that back into the original proof.

This mini-lemma, about prayer and healing has tangible process and results that can be proven scientifically and replicated by personal experience or professional field study.
So I recommend that approach for both practical benefits in medicine and therapy, and also answers to the philosophical questions regarding science and religion.

I believe your issues about God would be addressed in the process.

I can take responsibility for proving there is reason and scientific explanation to back up what I say.

First of all, your claim of the healing power of prayer presupposes the existence of God, something I do not accept since you have not proven his existence.

“Proof,” is the process of deriving a conclusion step by step from the evidence of the senses, each step being taken in accordance with the laws of logic. Prayer has no logic to it. It isn't physical. It can't be measured. It is simply one wishing for something to happen. As another poster said yesterday, prayer is no different than sending a letter to the north pole in December.

Let me ask you this: since you credit a god when someone is healed through prayer, would you blame a god if the opposite happened - if someone died?

Science is a method of gaining knowledge by systematically studying things that actually exist and have real effects, and since prayer has been determined by a variety of scientific journals that it has no effect whatsoever, we must conclude that prayer has no healing power. The notion that someone's health can be affected by the prayers or wishes of strangers is based on nothing but imagination and faith. Such blind belief represents the rejection of reason and science, and is not worthy of serious, rational consideration.

The only logical claim one may make regarding prayer and healing, is that due to psychological and physical benefits of knowing others are wishing for your good health boosts moral, thus aiding recovery. But it has nothing to do with divine intervention.

I don't with to argue about prayer. I wish to argue about the existence of your god, which is more fundamental.

RE: "prayer has no healing power"
The prayer is to remove the obstacles caused by unforgiveness in the mind and spirit, so that the natural healing power and process that ALREADY exists can take its course and not be blocked. The prayer does not cause this process, but removes the obstructions to the process. Does that make sense? The prayer involves the conscious choice of the individual to open the mind to forgiveness. It is like pushing the button to turn the power on. But hte power was already stored potentially and waiting to flow, when the connection is made instead of the circuit cut off.

RE: "The only logical claim one may make regarding prayer and healing, is that due to psychological and physical benefits of knowing others are wishing for your good health boosts moral, thus aiding recovery."

This does not explain how some effects occurred even though people were not directly aware of the targets of the prayer. One case I cite was studied by either Larry Dossey or Dale Matthews: the effects of the Hawaiian death curse, where the voodoo practitioner would cast a curse on a person, resulting in creeping paralysis starting in the legs and eventually causing death. This would happen even if the target person was not aware.
So it could not have been suggestion to that person.

The researchers behind the Silva Mind Control report that subjects who were geographically separated, and not aware of when the other would start to pray, would go into the prayer mode at the same time.

And I cited the Princeton study where random number generators were measurably affected by conscious efforts of subject to focus mentally on target sequences.
So it wasn't "people" experiencing the effects, but the generated number sequences.

In general, even if it IS just the power of suggestion, there is nothing wrong with applying such methods that have resulted in curing
Schizophrenia
Cancer
Multiple Personalities
Drug or sex addiction
rheumatoid arthritis

If all this can be cured that way, does it even matter if it is just thought suggestion or what?

 

[frazzledgear]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

I have a theory that a significant percentage of atheists, including every single one who shows up at a forum like this set aside for religious discussions - don't really NOT believe in God. I think they are angry with God and probably hate God. What better way to show one's hatred of God than by denying His very existence. Before dismissing that out of hand as atheists so often do before going off on another rant against God that just drips with their seething anger and hatred -consider this. I don't care if you don't believe in God. I'm not going to get in your face about it, not going to tell you the consequences for it because I know for a fact that you are already well aware of all that and made your choice and it will take something beyond any words I may have before it would change your heart and mind. I'm not the one who has what it will take to open that door for you at this point. So I have no problem leaving you to your self-proclaimed "non-belief". I won't be on any board or forum set aside to discuss what it means to be an atheist because I have absolutely no desire to waste my time like that.

I just LOVE that line there to other atheists who may be on this thread about how an atheist does not need to defend his position and not to let a theist try to get him to do so because atheists are not responsible for defending their position. WTF are you doing HERE then? No person of faith HERE has deliberately searched for a discussion board on atheism and what it means to be an atheist in order to challenge YOUR beliefs! No one HERE has deliberately sought you out trying to force a confrontation. It is one YOU are seeking in the first place. Therefore you should expect to have to defend your own beliefs if challenging MINE you MORON! You are here hoping to destroy and undermine the religious faith of others. It is your only motive. Because we all know you sure as hell aren't here to try and UNDERSTAND.

You only PROVE that you are among that huge percentage of atheists who are NOT content to leave me to my faith whatsoever. They are not only driven to mock and ridicule individuals for their religious faith in their personal and public conversations with others, but they also feel a burning need to denigrate an entire religion and its practitioners both privately and publicly -and in particular Christianity. Nothing gets an atheist up in arms more than Christianity does -which is very odd given the fact the religion that actually poses the greatest threat to atheists is a religion they rarely condemn for its inhumanity, brutality, thuggery, extremism and has a real game plan underway for global control and all the "beauty" that would bring to the planet and any human being who refuses to kiss their asses. I WOULD find it really odd that atheists despise Christianity with a passion that is totally lacking when they discuss any other religion on the planet, especially the one that SPECIFICALLY calls for the brutal and inhumane death of atheists in any land ruled by that religion -except I know why they do have that intensity of hatred for Christianity that doesn't exist for any other religion.

But if you dispassionately look at what truly can and cannot be laid at the feet of Christianity instead of focusing on what in reality was a brief period of aberration compared to the rest of its 2000 year existence -that negative passion is certainly misplaced and inexplicable except for one rational explanation. Any other justification atheists like to pretend is behind that negative passion and hatred is actually not rational at all. It was CHRISTIANS in the first place who relied upon their religion to find TOLERANCE for non-believers and specifically gave them safe haven safe from persecution in this country at a time when they were still being vigorously persecuted in Europe. And sure as hell would be persecuted again if another religion and its practitioners get their way in the world. Yet it is THE very religion atheists despise THE most and have the LEAST tolerance for themselves - and to the point of what APPEARS to be irrational.

The atheists that truly don't believe in the existence of God wouldn't care if I did or not. MY personal faith is irrelevant to an atheist, doesn't have any impact on their life any more than their lack of religious belief has any impact on my personal life either. A real atheist, one who truly did not believe in the existence of God wouldn't be involved in discussions on a forum set aside for discussions about religion.

The atheists who end up on forums set aside for discussions about religion aren't here to discuss religion -they are here to try and convince those with religious beliefs to stop having them. Atheists not only treat their own lack of religious beliefs as if it were actually a religion -they are here proselytizing for it. They hypocritically complain about religious proselytizers but at least their motivation, even if their methods can be overbearing - is a noble one and far more admirable than the motive of the atheist proselytizer. A Christian proselytizer is motivated by a generosity of spirit - no matter how clumsily or patronizingly or annoyingly or even arrogantly he may go about it and no matter whether it is appreciated by others or not. And in the end he will at least have the satisfaction of knowing he did his part to make sure others are aware of God's love and mercy, the consequences for rejecting Him and how to avoid them.

But WTF drives the faux atheist to show up in a forum for religious discussions to mock and ridicule those with religious beliefs who are properly in the religious section for discussions? Pretending they are discussing it dispassionately is even more silly because what they write STILL just drips with disdain and intolerance even when they are trying to pretend otherwise. And does so with such an intensity that they can't even realize it only reveals the depths of the sickness of their souls. It is both sad and pathetic -but your "arguments" carry NO weight whatsoever for anyone of faith. Your very motive is NOT from a generosity of spirit but the exact opposite. Seriously do you think someone is going to read some drivel written by the diseased soul of an atheist and find it a far more convincing argument than God's Word? REALLY? Come on.

An atheist can only argue from the viewpoint of a materialist about something the material world is and always will be completely incapable of defining in the first place -and every single Christian is well aware of that. The definition of FAITH is believing without proof -and FAITH requires an ACCEPTANCE of the fact the material world cannot provide that proof in the first place. So you ought to be able to understand just how irrelevant and even downright silly it sounds to a Christian when hearing some atheist who thinks he is saying something important when discussing how the material world cannot define the nature of God and then insisting that because man's puny, limited mind which exists in that material world is incapable of grasping the nature of God it is somehow "proof" God doesn't exist at all. And is obviously quite taken with himself enough to believe he has written something profound when in reality it is such drivel. MAN is limited by his own nature yet an atheist wants to pretend man's limited mental abilities somehow places limits on the nature of God -because MAN can't grasp it. Oh sure -that works for me....lol.

The atheists who show up at places like this to "discuss" religion are in fact trying to destroy the FAITH of others and dissuade those who may be seeking to find or strengthen their faith to abandon it. A motivation to try and destroy the FAITH of another person is to satisfy the individual who is doing it - NOT to benefit the person whose faith he wants to see destroyed -and is actually an evil motive. Which is why I seriously doubt any faux atheist who appears on boards like these has ever once successfully converted a person of faith to abandon it.

It would be like me, as someone who is not a physicist and doesn't understand it, deliberately seeking out boards and forums set aside for the discussion of issues in physics and inserting myself into their discussions by repeatedly insisting the fact I don't comprehend physics, I don't understand the laws used to define it, I don't comprehend the equations used in it - is "proof" it doesn't even exist and they are all just fooling themselves. And so STUPID for doing so. Demanding they try and come up with a way to make me understand and grasp it -while deriding and mocking them for MY limited ability to ever comprehend it. Every physicist in that forum would know I am the one full of shit -just as surely as very single religious person in this forum knows it is YOU who is full of shit too.

 

[k2skier]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

I have a theory that a significant percentage of atheists, including every single one who shows up at a forum like this set aside for religious discussions - don't really NOT believe in God. I think they are angry with God and probably hate God. What better way to show one's hatred of God than by denying His very existence. Before dismissing that out of hand as atheists so often do before going off on another rant against God that just drips with their seething anger and hatred -consider this. I don't care if you don't believe in God. I'm not going to get in your face about it, not going to tell you the consequences for it because I know for a fact that you are already well aware of all that and made your choice and it will take something beyond any words I may have before it would change your heart and mind. I'm not the one who has what it will take to open that door for you at this point. So I have no problem leaving you to your self-proclaimed "non-belief". I won't be on any board or forum set aside to discuss what it means to be an atheist because I have absolutely no desire to waste my time like that.

I just LOVE that line there to other atheists who may be on this thread about how an atheist does not need to defend his position and not to let a theist try to get him to do so because atheists are not responsible for defending their position. WTF are you doing HERE then? No person of faith HERE has deliberately searched for a discussion board on atheism and what it means to be an atheist in order to challenge YOUR beliefs! No one HERE has deliberately sought you out trying to force a confrontation. It is one YOU are seeking in the first place. Therefore you should expect to have to defend your own beliefs if challenging MINE you MORON! You are here hoping to destroy and undermine the religious faith of others. It is your only motive. Because we all know you sure as hell aren't here to try and UNDERSTAND.

You only PROVE that you are among that huge percentage of atheists who are NOT content to leave me to my faith whatsoever. They are not only driven to mock and ridicule individuals for their religious faith in their personal and public conversations with others, but they also feel a burning need to denigrate an entire religion and its practitioners both privately and publicly -and in particular Christianity. Nothing gets an atheist up in arms more than Christianity does -which is very odd given the fact the religion that actually poses the greatest threat to atheists is a religion they rarely condemn for its inhumanity, brutality, thuggery, extremism and has a real game plan underway for global control and all the "beauty" that would bring to the planet and any human being who refuses to kiss their asses. I WOULD find it really odd that atheists despise Christianity with a passion that is totally lacking when they discuss any other religion on the planet, especially the one that SPECIFICALLY calls for the brutal and inhumane death of atheists in any land ruled by that religion -except I know why they do have that intensity of hatred for Christianity that doesn't exist for any other religion.

But if you dispassionately look at what truly can and cannot be laid at the feet of Christianity instead of focusing on what in reality was a brief period of aberration compared to the rest of its 2000 year existence -that negative passion is certainly misplaced and inexplicable except for one rational explanation. Any other justification atheists like to pretend is behind that negative passion and hatred is actually not rational at all. It was CHRISTIANS in the first place who relied upon their religion to find TOLERANCE for non-believers and specifically gave them safe haven safe from persecution in this country at a time when they were still being vigorously persecuted in Europe. And sure as hell would be persecuted again if another religion and its practitioners get their way in the world. Yet it is THE very religion atheists despise THE most and have the LEAST tolerance for themselves - and to the point of what APPEARS to be irrational.

The atheists that truly don't believe in the existence of God wouldn't care if I did or not. MY personal faith is irrelevant to an atheist, doesn't have any impact on their life any more than their lack of religious belief has any impact on my personal life either. A real atheist, one who truly did not believe in the existence of God wouldn't be involved in discussions on a forum set aside for discussions about religion.

The atheists who end up on forums set aside for discussions about religion aren't here to discuss religion -they are here to try and convince those with religious beliefs to stop having them. Atheists not only treat their own lack of religious beliefs as if it were actually a religion -they are here proselytizing for it. They hypocritically complain about religious proselytizers but at least their motivation, even if their methods can be overbearing - is a noble one and far more admirable than the motive of the atheist proselytizer. A Christian proselytizer is motivated by a generosity of spirit - no matter how clumsily or patronizingly or annoyingly or even arrogantly he may go about it and no matter whether it is appreciated by others or not. And in the end he will at least have the satisfaction of knowing he did his part to make sure others are aware of God's love and mercy, the consequences for rejecting Him and how to avoid them.

But WTF drives the faux atheist to show up in a forum for religious discussions to mock and ridicule those with religious beliefs who are properly in the religious section for discussions? Pretending they are discussing it dispassionately is even more silly because what they write STILL just drips with disdain and intolerance even when they are trying to pretend otherwise. And does so with such an intensity that they can't even realize it only reveals the depths of the sickness of their souls. It is both sad and pathetic -but your "arguments" carry NO weight whatsoever for anyone of faith. Your very motive is NOT from a generosity of spirit but the exact opposite. Seriously do you think someone is going to read some drivel written by the diseased soul of an atheist and find it a far more convincing argument than God's Word? REALLY? Come on.

An atheist can only argue from the viewpoint of a materialist about something the material world is and always will be completely incapable of defining in the first place -and every single Christian is well aware of that. The definition of FAITH is believing without proof -and FAITH requires an ACCEPTANCE of the fact the material world cannot provide that proof in the first place. So you ought to be able to understand just how irrelevant and even downright silly it sounds to a Christian when hearing some atheist who thinks he is saying something important when discussing how the material world cannot define the nature of God and then insisting that because man's puny, limited mind which exists in that material world is incapable of grasping the nature of God it is somehow "proof" God doesn't exist at all. And is obviously quite taken with himself enough to believe he has written something profound when in reality it is such drivel. MAN is limited by his own nature yet an atheist wants to pretend man's limited mental abilities somehow places limits on the nature of God -because MAN can't grasp it. Oh sure -that works for me....lol.

The atheists who show up at places like this to "discuss" religion are in fact trying to destroy the FAITH of others and dissuade those who may be seeking to find or strengthen their faith to abandon it. A motivation to try and destroy the FAITH of another person is to satisfy the individual who is doing it - NOT to benefit the person whose faith he wants to see destroyed -and is actually an evil motive. Which is why I seriously doubt any faux atheist who appears on boards like these has ever once successfully converted a person of faith to abandon it.

It would be like me, as someone who is not a physicist and doesn't understand it, deliberately seeking out boards and forums set aside for the discussion of issues in physics and inserting myself into their discussions by repeatedly insisting the fact I don't comprehend physics, I don't understand the laws used to define it, I don't comprehend the equations used in it - is "proof" it doesn't even exist and they are all just fooling themselves. And so STUPID for doing so. Demanding they try and come up with a way to make me understand and grasp it -while deriding and mocking them for MY limited ability to ever comprehend it. Every physicist in that forum would know I am the one full of shit -just as surely as very single religious person in this forum knows it is YOU who is full of shit too.

You're delusional and or just brainwashed. Atheist isn't a label I put on myself; it's one that those who practice their Dogma's put on me!

Why are you so angry?

I am a Freethinker

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.

Here's a definition from American Atheist;

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free (IE freethinkers) from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural influence in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. it teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive to always improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

 

[Tetracide]

Interesting, frazzledgear, that you spent time and effort explaining why something is not worth time or effort. But since you're here:

I have a theory that a significant percentage of atheists, including every single one who shows up at a forum like this set aside for religious discussions - don't really NOT believe in God. I think they are angry with God and probably hate God. What better way to show one's hatred of God than by denying His very existence.

Well, let me tell you that I am not angry with God, and do not hate Him. I find it very difficult to be angry with or hate something that does not exist. I do not believe in God because I do not accept the argument proposed by theists of his existence. God is a concept proposed by theists with insufficient evidence. My not believing in such a concept doesn't make me a value-less, hate-mongering, anti-Christian bigot. It simply makes me unconvinced of your case.

I don't care if you don't believe in God. I'm not going to get in your face about it, not going to tell you the consequences for it because I know for a fact that you are already well aware of all that and made your choice and it will take something beyond any words I may have before it would change your heart and mind. I'm not the one who has what it will take to open that door for you at this point. So I have no problem leaving you to your self-proclaimed "non-belief". I won't be on any board or forum set aside to discuss what it means to be an atheist because I have absolutely no desire to waste my time like that.

And that is your right to do so. I respect it. And we can part as friends. I have no interest in pursuing you and throwing my arguments in your face. That is the virtue of a online discussion forum; those who wish to partake in the conversation may, those who do not, may not.

I just LOVE that line there to other atheists who may be on this thread about how an atheist does not need to defend his position and not to let a theist try to get him to do so because atheists are not responsible for defending their position. WTF are you doing HERE then? No person of faith HERE has deliberately searched for a discussion board on atheism and what it means to be an atheist in order to challenge YOUR beliefs! No one HERE has deliberately sought you out trying to force a confrontation.

You're right, no one has sought me out to force a confrontation. But I think you are missing entirely the purpose of an online discussion forum: to discuss. I enjoy talking about this subject, not because I'm on some diabolical quest to convert all theists to atheism, but because I enjoy the intellectual exercise. Nothing more. Nothing less. You have no obligation to entertain me (although you have thus far).

It is one YOU are seeking in the first place. Therefore you should expect to have to defend your own beliefs if challenging MINE you MORON!

Not at all. You are not understanding the logic of this type of discussion (a discussion you have curiously thus far insinuated as pointless). A theist present a claim to the existence of a supernatural being called a god. Atheists simply do not accept the evidence provided for that claim.

Put another way, if President Obama were to launch a mission to Mars to mine a special energy source that will change the world economy, it is reasonable for him to justify - with evidence - why he wishes to do so. If he fails, his case fails.

You are here hoping to destroy and undermine the religious faith of others. It is your only motive. Because we all know you sure as hell aren't here to try and UNDERSTAND.

I'm not here to understand. I'm here, like I said, as an intellectual exercise for myself. That's all.

You only PROVE that you are among that huge percentage of atheists who are NOT content to leave me to my faith whatsoever. They are not only driven to mock and ridicule individuals for their religious faith in their personal and public conversations with others, but they also feel a burning need to denigrate an entire religion and its practitioners both privately and publicly -and in particular Christianity. Nothing gets an atheist up in arms more than Christianity does -which is very odd given the fact the religion that actually poses the greatest threat to atheists is a religion they rarely condemn for its inhumanity, brutality, thuggery, extremism and has a real game plan underway for global control and all the "beauty" that would bring to the planet and any human being who refuses to kiss their asses. I WOULD find it really odd that atheists despise Christianity with a passion that is totally lacking when they discuss any other religion on the planet, especially the one that SPECIFICALLY calls for the brutal and inhumane death of atheists in any land ruled by that religion -except I know why they do have that intensity of hatred for Christianity that doesn't exist for any other religion.

Christianity, being the largest religion, is the easiest to poke fun at. But I couldn't care less which brand of theist you are. Jewish, Christian, Islamic, ect. Each religion rests on the same faulty assumptions. Furthermore, ignoring the violence that religion has instigated among men throughout history is a call to ignorance.

But if you dispassionately look at what truly can and cannot be laid at the feet of Christianity instead of focusing on what in reality was a brief period of aberration compared to the rest of its 2000 year existence -that negative passion is certainly misplaced and inexplicable except for one rational explanation. Any other justification atheists like to pretend is behind that negative passion and hatred is actually not rational at all. It was CHRISTIANS in the first place who relied upon their religion to find TOLERANCE for non-believers and specifically gave them safe haven safe from persecution in this country at a time when they were still being vigorously persecuted in Europe. And sure as hell would be persecuted again if another religion and its practitioners get their way in the world. Yet it is THE very religion atheists despise THE most and have the LEAST tolerance for themselves - and to the point of what APPEARS to be irrational.

Like I said, I have issues with them all on many grounds; metaphysically, epistemologically, and morally. I don't have a favorite religion to discuss, nor am I seething in hate for one particular group.

The atheists that truly don't believe in the existence of God wouldn't care if I did or not. MY personal faith is irrelevant to an atheist, doesn't have any impact on their life any more than their lack of religious belief has any impact on my personal life either. A real atheist, one who truly did not believe in the existence of God wouldn't be involved in discussions on a forum set aside for discussions about religion.

You're right, I don't care about your beliefs. And in fact, in the United States, we have a constitution which allows you free practice of that religion, which I agree with completely. I only care inasmuch as you do. This forum is a place to talk about things, religion included. If you don't want to join my conversation, then don't. Making a long post about my "anger" or "hatred" is not only unsubstantiated and ill-conceived, but misplaced and unamusing.

But WTF drives the faux atheist to show up in a forum for religious discussions to mock and ridicule those with religious beliefs who are properly in the religious section for discussions?

You'll only read intellectual challenges from me, not ridicule or mocking.

An atheist can only argue from the viewpoint of a materialist about something the material world is and always will be completely incapable of defining in the first place -and every single Christian is well aware of that. The definition of FAITH is believing without proof -and FAITH requires an ACCEPTANCE of the fact the material world cannot provide that proof in the first place. So you ought to be able to understand just how irrelevant and even downright silly it sounds to a Christian when hearing some atheist who thinks he is saying something important when discussing how the material world cannot define the nature of God and then insisting that because man's puny, limited mind which exists in that material world is incapable of grasping the nature of God it is somehow "proof" God doesn't exist at all.

It may seem irrelevant to you - in which case I would encourage you not to join the conversation. But since you have already chosen to...

Because man's "puny" mind cannot grasp the nature of God, what then is the nature and validity of our knowledge of God? In what way is it reliable?

Since most religions give God characteristics like ineffable, infinite, or invisible, how are these characteristics known? One must wonder how it is possible to declare God’s incomprehensibility and simultaneously list attributes to God. If God cannot be comprehended, how can the theist offer us a string of attributes whose function, presumably, is to enable us to understand the nature of God?

 

[Tetracide]

RE: "The only logical claim one may make regarding prayer and healing, is that due to psychological and physical benefits of knowing others are wishing for your good health boosts moral, thus aiding recovery."

This does not explain how some effects occurred even though people were not directly aware of the targets of the prayer. One case I cite was studied by either Larry Dossey or Dale Matthews: the effects of the Hawaiian death curse, where the voodoo practitioner would cast a curse on a person, resulting in creeping paralysis starting in the legs and eventually causing death. This would happen even if the target person was not aware.
So it could not have been suggestion to that person.

The researchers behind the Silva Mind Control report that subjects who were geographically separated, and not aware of when the other would start to pray, would go into the prayer mode at the same time.

And I cited the Princeton study where random number generators were measurably affected by conscious efforts of subject to focus mentally on target sequences.
So it wasn't "people" experiencing the effects, but the generated number sequences.

In general, even if it IS just the power of suggestion, there is nothing wrong with applying such methods that have resulted in curing
Schizophrenia
Cancer
Multiple Personalities
Drug or sex addiction
rheumatoid arthritis

If all this can be cured that way, does it even matter if it is just thought suggestion or what?

I would like links to specific studies so that I may review their methodology. I have a feeling such studies are similar to the discredited Cha study.

 

[uscitizen]

Angry with God?

How the heck can I be angry with something/one that I do not believe exist?

Now being angry with what some do in the name of god is an entirely different matter.

 

[Anguille]

I have a theory that a significant percentage of atheists, including every single one who shows up at a forum like this set aside for religious discussions - don't really NOT believe in God. I think they are angry with God and probably hate God. What better way to show one's hatred of God than by denying His very existence.

Well, let me tell you that I am not angry with God, and do not hate Him. I find it very difficult to be angry with or hate something that does not exist. I do not believe in God because I do not accept the argument proposed by theists of his existence. God is a concept proposed by theists with insufficient evidence. My not believing in such a concept doesn't make me a value-less, hate-mongering, anti-Christian bigot. It simply makes me unconvinced of your case.

I've heard that "atheists are angry with god" schtick before and you just have to laugh at the absurdity of it.

I think some believers have the concept of god so deeply ingrained in them, most likely from having grown up in a religious household and/or culture, that they honestly cannot fathom the absense of divinity, even if they try.

 

[jeffrockit]

In this thread, I wish to speak directly to my fellow atheists on this board to better equip them in the discussions that occur here.

I want to impart with you the following ideas that you must keep in mind in every discussion you have with a theist.

We are not responsible for defending our position. It is the theist who invents a mystical creature called god, endows it with absurd characteristics, establishes a culture and following around it, and decrees we adhere to the subjective teachings assigned to it. Our rejection of this is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. The burden of proof resides with the theist, and he alone.

There are however, different degrees of atheism. Positive Atheism, and Negative Atheism.

Positive atheists (atheists that not only reject theism, but accept god cannot exist), do make a claim, and must substantiate it accordingly. They may do so in a variety of ways, one of which is encapsulated by George H. Smith:

To be is to be something as opposed to nothing, and to be something is to be something specific. If a god is to have any characteristics (which it must to exist), these characteristics must be specific—but to assign definite attributes, to say that a being is this as opposed to that, is to limit the capacities of that being and to subject it to the uniformity imposed by those capacities.

A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature—which amounts to existing without any nature at all. If we are to talk intelligibly about a god, we must presuppose that this god has characteristics by which it can be identified. But once the idea of supernatural existence is introduced, an existence apart from the limitations of natural law, we exclude the possibility of assigning any definite characteristics to a god—because by so doing we bring our god within the realm of limitations and hence within the realm of natural law.

Negative atheists, may sit back and relax. They may spend their time explaining to the theist why their claims of God's existence are insufficient. The theist may say, "God transcends human understanding; he is unknowable," to which I'm sure you can reduce to absurdity with relative ease.

Never allow the theist to bog you down with scripture or any other evidence within the realm of theism. It rests on a faulty premise that you may not stand upon.

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Good posting.

And yet you wasted your time and energy making a statement about something you don't believe in. Why are Atheists so bothered at what Christians believe?

 

[Tetracide]

And yet you wasted your time and energy making a statement about something you don't believe in. Why are Atheists so bothered at what Christians believe?

And if you read the rest of my post, you'd know exactly why I've chosen to talk about this subject. But since you obviously didn't, you sound like a fool.

 

[Ernie S.]

I am open to other atheists' questions and enjoy assisting my fellow free thinkers in their quests on this board.

Free thinkers? Yeah, right LOL

Apparently he doesn't want to be challenged, and is closed minded about the possibility that God does exist.

How dare you invade his comfortable space, Jeff