Why smug atheists are wrong

[Capstone]

Genocidal? [...]

Definitely. If anyone has ever qualified as 'genocidal' for killing fewer than every man, woman, and child on the planet outside of one family, then the God of the Bible certainly qualifies as well.

Tyrant? [...]

Yes, if the scriptures are to be believed, HE's an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions, exercises power arbitrarily (often in a harsh, cruel manner), and governs oppressively (with the promise of severe punishment for anyone who chooses not to worship HIM).

What [were?] you reading?

A little known book called The Bible.

 

[Capstone]

In order for you to classify God as genocidal for the story of Noah you would actually have to believe that it literally happened. Do you have some evidence of that that I am unaware of?

Quoting myself, from the very post to which you responded:

"To reiterate: as far as I'm concerned, it's not as much a question as to whether HE exists or not ...as it is a firm conviction that such a hypothetical being isn't worthy of praise or admiration either way. [emphasis added]

I needn't believe HE exists in order to believe that, if HE does, the Bible has painted HIM as a genocidal tyrant to the highest degree possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Genocidal? [...]

Definitely. If anyone has ever qualified as 'genocidal' for killing fewer than every man, woman, and child on the planet outside of one family, then the God of the Bible certainly qualifies as well.

Tyrant? [...]

Yes, if the scriptures are to be believed, HE's an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions, exercises power arbitrarily (often in a harsh, cruel manner), and governs oppressively (with the promise of severe punishment for anyone who chooses not to worship HIM).

What [were?] you reading?

A little known book called The Bible.

Care to provide actual evidence of any of that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In order for you to classify God as genocidal for the story of Noah you would actually have to believe that it literally happened. Do you have some evidence of that that I am unaware of?

Quoting myself, from the very post to which you responded:

"To reiterate: as far as I'm concerned, it's not as much a question as to whether HE exists or not ...as it is a firm conviction that such a hypothetical being isn't worthy of praise or admiration either way. [emphasis added]

I needn't believe HE exists in order to believe that, if HE does, the Bible has painted HIM as a genocidal tyrant to the highest degree possible.

In other words, like most idiots, you settled on a definition of God you didn't like, then declared yourself above worshiping the God you created in your head. I never quite understood how that worked myself, even back when I didn't believe. At least I was honest enough to admit I didn't know everything.

 

[Capstone]

In other words, like most idiots, you settled on a definition of God you didn't like, then declared yourself above worshiping the God you created in your head.[...]

No, before denouncing the Faith of my upbringing, I settled on the widely accepted definition of the God of Christianity (you know, the Omnimax, Merciful, Loving Creator of the Universe) and set out to justify the definition on both a scriptural and personal level. It was one thing to hold the Bible as 'the inspired Word of God'; it was another thing to try to reconcile its many God-sanctioned atrocities with my own conscience.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What I'll NEVER do is compromise certain principles in order to justify bowing down to a genocidal tyrant.

I may have missed something and don't much feel like digging through a thread of mostly petty bickering over meaningless minutiae, but this stuck out. Which genocidal tyrant?

Well, any; but the worst imaginable was the one I had in mind.

Click on some of the links in this post for further reason to denounce the God of the Bible in the strongest terms possible.

To reiterate: as far as I'm concerned, it's not as much a question as to whether HE exists or not ...as it is a firm conviction that such a hypothetical being isn't worthy of praise or admiration either way.

I think I get the point you are making, but given that "genocide" is a word that didn't even exist until 1944, and has a pretty specific meaning, it is more than a little problematic to attach that definition to the deluge. If you want to bind the two together have at it, but I do hope you realize that is pretty figurative use of the word.

 

[newpolitics]

It basically comes down to one word, wonder. Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one. The simple fact is that, a sense of wonder makes us humble, and anyone that approaches the universe without wonder and humility is crazier than the guy who thinks he is in charge.

You know this, how? You are dead wrong, and your position doesn't even make any sense. I'm an atheist, and the universe is absolutely wonderful, literally. I have just falsified your little assertion.

Actually, being that atheists tend to more scientifically literate, they likely possess (I can only speak for myself) more awe at the universe, simply because, they know more about it, than those theists, and fundamental christians in particular, who think science is evil.

Given that this is a thread of mostly people speaking for themselves (including the OP) then there really are not valid positions, just observations. So, for the reader, whatever observation speaks to one the most will undoubtedly win out.

Of course they are valid positions, regardless of who they are speaking for. You are invoking confirmation bias as if this is an epistemology unto itself, which is odd, and to the exclusion of common sense and other heuristics that would counter-act confirmation bias. I feel justified in saying that atheists are more scientifically literate, both from observation and inference, than most theists. Therefore, I conclude that it is atheists, who, knowing more about the universe, are able to possess more awe than theists.

Since we are talking about the inner-quality of "awe" that would exist in other minds, there is no scientific way to establish this, as you kind of pointed out. So, this thread is pretty pointless.

 

[Capstone]

I think I get the point you are making, but given that "genocide" is a word that didn't even exist until 1944, and has a pretty specific meaning, it is more than a little problematic to attach that definition to the deluge. If you want to bind the two together have at it, but I do hope you realize that is pretty figurative use of the word.

Applying that logic elsewhere, I suppose there were no schizophrenics before the formal definition of schizophrenia was penned?

But point taken.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You know this, how? You are dead wrong, and your position doesn't even make any sense. I'm an atheist, and the universe is absolutely wonderful, literally. I have just falsified your little assertion.

Actually, being that atheists tend to more scientifically literate, they likely possess (I can only speak for myself) more awe at the universe, simply because, they know more about it, than those theists, and fundamental christians in particular, who think science is evil.

Given that this is a thread of mostly people speaking for themselves (including the OP) then there really are not valid positions, just observations. So, for the reader, whatever observation speaks to one the most will undoubtedly win out.

Of course they are valid positions, regardless of who they are speaking for. You are invoking confirmation bias as if this is an all-encompassing epistemology, to the exclusion of common sense and other heuristics that would counter-act confirmation bias. C'mon, people possess power of inference beyond just their own experience, and observations are valid sources of information from which to deduce a model of reality, some more sound than others. I feel valid in deducing that atheists are more scientifically literate, both from observation and inference. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that it is atheists, who, knowing more about the universe, are able to possess more awe than theists, who "spend" their awe at god, a being with no evidence for its existence.

Observations are valid when they are balanced, representative, and intended to test a hypothesis.

I can infer little to nothing by most observations on USMB, especially when they are qualified by the expression "in my experience."

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I think I get the point you are making, but given that "genocide" is a word that didn't even exist until 1944, and has a pretty specific meaning, it is more than a little problematic to attach that definition to the deluge. If you want to bind the two together have at it, but I do hope you realize that is pretty figurative use of the word.

Applying that logic elsewhere, I suppose there were no schizophrenics before the formal definition of schizophrenia was penned?

But point taken.

Touche, but I'm glad you take my point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, like most idiots, you settled on a definition of God you didn't like, then declared yourself above worshiping the God you created in your head.[...]

No, before denouncing the Faith of my upbringing, I settled on the widely accepted definition of the God of Christianity (you know, the Omnimax, Merciful, Loving Creator of the Universe) and set out to justify the definition on both a scriptural and personal level. It was one thing to hold the Bible as 'the inspired Word of God'; it was another thing to try to reconcile its many God-sanctioned atrocities with my own conscience.

Let me ask you a question, how is the fact that the definition you settled on the one that most other people settled on change what I said in any way, shape, or form? Do you have proof that most people are right when they define God that way? If you have proof they are right in their definition, can you please enlighten the rest of us, because I have seen absolutely no evidence in the Bible, or outside of it, that that particular definition is even close to being accurate.

 

[newpolitics]

Given that this is a thread of mostly people speaking for themselves (including the OP) then there really are not valid positions, just observations. So, for the reader, whatever observation speaks to one the most will undoubtedly win out.

Of course they are valid positions, regardless of who they are speaking for. You are invoking confirmation bias as if this is an all-encompassing epistemology, to the exclusion of common sense and other heuristics that would counter-act confirmation bias. C'mon, people possess power of inference beyond just their own experience, and observations are valid sources of information from which to deduce a model of reality, some more sound than others. I feel valid in deducing that atheists are more scientifically literate, both from observation and inference. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that it is atheists, who, knowing more about the universe, are able to possess more awe than theists, who "spend" their awe at god, a being with no evidence for its existence.

Observations are valid when they are balanced, representative, and intended to test a hypothesis.

I can infer little to nothing by most observations on USMB, especially when they are qualified by the expression "in my experience."

Observations have nothing to do with validity when it comes to making arguments. Insomuch as they may form a premise in an argument, they still can not be "invalid." Only an argument itself, can be invalid. In other words, the methodology with which conclusions are drawn, can be invalid or valid.

Furthermore, your criteria for deducing which observations are "valid" is completely subjective.

 

[newpolitics]

It basically comes down to one word, wonder. Smug atheists insist there is no room for wonder in the universe, and that their experience is the only valid one. The simple fact is that, a sense of wonder makes us humble, and anyone that approaches the universe without wonder and humility is crazier than the guy who thinks he is in charge.

You know this, how? You are dead wrong, and your position doesn't even make any sense. I'm an atheist, and the universe is absolutely wonderful, literally. I have just falsified your little assertion.

Actually, being that atheists tend to more scientifically literate, they likely possess (I can only speak for myself) more awe at the universe, simply because, they know more about it, than those theists, and fundamental christians in particular, who think science is evil.

I know this from experience. If I was actually dead wrong somebody would have been able to come up with a better argument than trying to say I am talking about all atheists by now, yet not one person has. Since you can only speak for yourself, and have no idea how the smug atheists, like Cammmpbell, think, you cannot prove me wrong either.

Thanks for once again contributing to the data points that help prove me right.

The point is to try to stave off confirmation bias, not cultivate it.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Observations have nothing to do with validity when it comes to making arguments.

In the realm of informal fallacies, where most debates tread, if an observation supports a premise, then it absolutely has something to do with the validity of the argument. A personal "in my experience" observation, unless it's the observation of somebody like a doctor who has made the same observation over and over, and upon whose authority we can attach some significance, has no verifiability, and unless the receiver can "relate" to the observation, it has no merit. It is highly subjective. Scientific observation that is recorded and verifiable is much less so.

Furthermore, your criteria for deducing which observations are "valid" is completely subjective.

See above. No. I don't think the above differentiation is really a matter of subjective opinion. Explain to me how your personal experience should convince me of your argument, or how my personal experience should convince you of mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know this, how? You are dead wrong, and your position doesn't even make any sense. I'm an atheist, and the universe is absolutely wonderful, literally. I have just falsified your little assertion.

Actually, being that atheists tend to more scientifically literate, they likely possess (I can only speak for myself) more awe at the universe, simply because, they know more about it, than those theists, and fundamental christians in particular, who think science is evil.

I know this from experience. If I was actually dead wrong somebody would have been able to come up with a better argument than trying to say I am talking about all atheists by now, yet not one person has. Since you can only speak for yourself, and have no idea how the smug atheists, like Cammmpbell, think, you cannot prove me wrong either.

Thanks for once again contributing to the data points that help prove me right.

The point is to try to stave off confirmation bias, not cultivate it.

Confirmation bias, the tendency to favor information that supports their predefined beliefs.

Can you explain how the total failure of anyone to actually make a cogent argument against my position proves confirmation bias on my part? Isn't it more likely, given the circumstances, that I am actually saying something that is so unthinkable to some people that they have no way to argue against it?

Personally, I have noticed that conservatives that are graduates of liberal colleges, and passionate about their beliefs, tend to do better in debates than liberal graduates of those same colleges. This is a phenomena that I noticed only at religious colleges in my younger days. The fact that everyone at the college believed absolutely in the Bible, and that they never had to actually defend their positions, left the conservatives there unable to articulate an actual defense of their beliefs. Maybe you should think about that, and your own confirmation bias, instead of trying to argue that my bias is making it impossible for others to argue with me.

 

[Capstone]

[...] how [does?] the fact that the definition you settled on [was?} the one that most other people settled on change what I said in any way, shape, or form? [...]

Well, unlike most Christians (who must be among the "idiots" you mentioned), I never really "settled" on the definition (note the italics in my previous post). I challenged it, not only against my experiences in day-to-day life ...but against what the scriptures often implied WRT the nature of the God of whom they spoke.

[...] Do you have proof that most [Christians?] are right when they define God that way? <snip> [...] because I have seen absolutely no evidence in the Bible, or outside of it, that that particular definition is even close to being accurate.

Nor have I, and that was a major factor in my decision to reject Christian theism.

FYI, as a pantheist (ala Spinoza), I haven't rejected theism wholesale.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[...] how [does?] the fact that the definition you settled on [was?} the one that most other people settled on change what I said in any way, shape, or form? [...]

Well, unlike most Christians (who must be among the "idiots" you mentioned), I never really "settled" on the definition (note the italics in my previous post). I challenged it, not only against my experiences in day-to-day life ...but against what the scriptures often implied WRT the nature of the God of whom they spoke.

[...] Do you have proof that most [Christians?] are right when they define God that way? <snip> [...] because I have seen absolutely no evidence in the Bible, or outside of it, that that particular definition is even close to being accurate.

Nor have I, and that was a major factor in my decision to reject Christian theism.

FYI, as a pantheist (ala Spinoza), I haven't rejected theism wholesale.

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

 

[Capstone]

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

And which interpretation have you accepted (or rejected as the case may be)?

 

[newpolitics]

[...] how [does?] the fact that the definition you settled on [was?} the one that most other people settled on change what I said in any way, shape, or form? [...]

Well, unlike most Christians (who must be among the "idiots" you mentioned), I never really "settled" on the definition (note the italics in my previous post). I challenged it, not only against my experiences in day-to-day life ...but against what the scriptures often implied WRT the nature of the God of whom they spoke.

[...] Do you have proof that most [Christians?] are right when they define God that way? <snip> [...] because I have seen absolutely no evidence in the Bible, or outside of it, that that particular definition is even close to being accurate.

Nor have I, and that was a major factor in my decision to reject Christian theism.

FYI, as a pantheist (ala Spinoza), I haven't rejected theism wholesale.

For the record, you did not reject Christianity, you rejected the popular interpretation of it, which makes you about as smart as the people that insist that you are wrong for not accepting their idiocy.

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christianity, as it is defined, is satisfied both in the "popular" interpretation and whatever interpretation you have concocted (otherwise, you are the one who is "not a real christian"). Therefore, you can not sit there and claim that Capstone rejected an "unreal" version of christianity, unless you can demonstrate how the mainstream version of Christianity does not satisfy the definition of christianity, which I would be curious to see you try and do.

 

[Avatar4321]

In other words, like most idiots, you settled on a definition of God you didn't like, then declared yourself above worshiping the God you created in your head.[...]

No, before denouncing the Faith of my upbringing, I settled on the widely accepted definition of the God of Christianity (you know, the Omnimax, Merciful, Loving Creator of the Universe) and set out to justify the definition on both a scriptural and personal level. It was one thing to hold the Bible as 'the inspired Word of God'; it was another thing to try to reconcile its many God-sanctioned atrocities with my own conscience.

Why settle on the widely accepted definition, rather than the actual one? Is there something wrong with looking at God for who He really is?

And what is the point of doing a purely academic analysis? The truth of God's words comes in establishing an actual relationship with God and recieving Revelation from the Holy Spirit. It comes through being born again through the Atonement of Christ. If you haven't experienced that, then how can you possible think you know anything about God. because it's only through our Experiences with Him that we can know Him.

How can we know the master we haven't served?