U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-02-2014, 04:01 PM
 
59 posts, read 59,808 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl View Post
A form of abuse? I can see that. An abuse of trust. For sure when the child grows up and if he is able to think for himself and "discovers" there is no god, he will wonder why his parents lied to him.
Are you so very sure there is no God ? It is rather strange that, since the greatest minds of all time were at least 'deists',even if they had no personal Relationship with the Creator.
Even Dawkins is not a one hundred per cent atheist ,and when he wrote his book "the God Delusion",he only knew about religion from the point of view of mainly uneducated American mega Church style etc.
He has never studied truly deeply ,as most atheists have not, and are not capable of doing.
The atheism of which developed in the 18th to 20th century after the discovery of the planet uranus is proving to be a short term one', as it's fruits prove to be incapable of anything but corrupting society.
Dawkins is only a very second rate scientist,but even he has doubts now,having embarrased himself and annoyed the more enlightened scientific community,who are realising that there is much more proof of God than there is not .
Reading: "Finding Darwin's God ,Creation or evolution".(do we have to chose)? Anthony Flew,philosopher "There is no God ,changed to "There is a God" etc.
Atheists are so uneducated,and have a ' blind spot' too. At least believers do not have a 'blind spot',even if some need a better education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2014, 04:38 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,936 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieTherese View Post
Are you so very sure there is no God ? It is rather strange that, since the greatest minds of all time were at least 'deists',even if they had no personal Relationship with the Creator.
Very true, but this simply means that they were in a time where being an atheist, as opposed to a deist who believed God had no practical influence on the world, was a stand that could get you socially ostracized, if not killed. See for example, Thomas Paine, who was a deist, but was branded an atheist and went from Founding Father to pariah virtually overnight. The social cost for being an atheist was incredibly high, whereas simply giving a head nod to a god, but living in every way like a non-believer was as least somewhat acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieTherese View Post
Even Dawkins is not a one hundred per cent atheist ,and when he wrote his book "the God Delusion",he only knew about religion from the point of view of mainly uneducated American mega Church style etc.
He has never studied truly deeply ,as most atheists have not, and are not capable of doing.
The atheism of which developed in the 18th to 20th century after the discovery of the planet uranus is proving to be a short term one', as it's fruits prove to be incapable of anything but corrupting society.
Dawkins is only a very second rate scientist,but even he has doubts now,having embarrased himself and annoyed the more enlightened scientific community,who are realising that there is much more proof of God than there is not .
That is a tremendous bunch of unfounded ad hominim, ridiculous claims, and a gross distortion of Dawkins' position. He like most of us non-believers is an agnostic atheist, that is we do not believe, but we recognize the limits of human knowledge and leave the possibility of a god existing. All we need is sufficient evidence...

As far as atheists not having studied religion, or not being capable of understanding it, that is simply laughable. I spend 20 years of my life as a devout theist. While I don't know everything about every religion or sect, I am certainly not some clueless novice as regards religion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieTherese View Post
Reading: "Finding Darwin's God ,Creation or evolution".(do we have to chose)? Anthony Flew,philosopher "There is no God ,changed to "There is a God" etc.
Thats nice. And your point is? People change their beliefs all the time, people convert, they deconvert. What is important is why and what they convert to. Flew converted solely on the the teleological argument, that is that there must a have been a first cause. However convincing he may have found this argument, others of us see only special pleading for God. Why can the universe itself not be the uncaused cause? In addition, Flew explicitly denied that the concept of God he believed in had any onging interaction whatsoever with the world. No moral rules, no worship, no intervention, no son, no salvation, simply a philosophic first cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieTherese View Post
Atheists are so uneducated,and have a ' blind spot' too. At least believers do not have a 'blind spot',even if some need a better education.
Please, elaborate on hiw uneducated we are, and what our blind spot is. Educate me.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 04:39 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,923,003 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieTherese View Post
Reading: "Finding Darwin's God ,Creation or evolution".(do we have to chose)? Anthony Flew,philosopher "There is no God ,changed to "There is a God" etc.
Atheists are so uneducated,and have a ' blind spot' too. At least believers do not have a 'blind spot',even if some need a better education.
Many atheists grew up as theists. We are not so unknowledgeable as you believe.

As for Anthony Flew:
The Exploitation of Antony Flew

Quote:
Mark Oppenheimer of the Times went to Reading to interview Flew. Oppenheimer found that he was polite and agreeable, but suffering from serious memory gaps. Flew could not define terms like “abiogenesis” and was unfamiliar with the arguments advanced in the book. He freely admitted, and Varghese confirmed, that Varghese wrote all the original content of the book. Flew was simply persuaded to sign his name to it after it had been written for him.

The only conclusion I can draw is that these apologists are taking advantage of a confused, elderly man in a state of cognitive decline. There’s little evidence that Flew even understands the controversy he’s at the center of, much less that he changed his position as the result of any new arguments. These apologists insinuated themselves into his life, won his confidence, and then pushed him to agree to their claims when he no longer knew what he was agreeing to, and are now using him as a prop to promote their antiquated, irrational superstitions. (Although even by the most Christian-friendly interpretation of these events, Flew is now a deist, not a Christian – which one would think, in their eyes, leaves him just as damned as if he’d been an atheist.)

Just to be clear, I don’t expect this to have the slightest impact on the atheist community. We are not atheists because we follow Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris). We follow these people because we are atheists and find their positions in agreement with our own. Even if Antony Flew had converted in his prime, that would have no persuasive effect on me unless he could show the facts and evidence that led to this decision. The Times article mentions “what others have at stake”, but in fact there is nothing at stake other than the sad story of a worthy philosopher’s legacy being coopted late in life by confidence tricksters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 05:24 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Drew K is the latest nom de plume of the poster previously known as stargazzer, macpherson and a few others I've forgotten.
Aha . . . good catch, Trout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 06:16 PM
 
Location: TX
6,491 posts, read 5,244,242 times
Reputation: 2619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Seemingly even if that "reason" is arbitrary, contrived, and empty.
It should be 100% clear what my reason is, for saying it's ok to say "There's no monster under your bed" while frowning at "There is no god". And even if it wasn't, it should be by this point because I explained it (as if anyone should need the explanation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Already did. Re-read my posts please. Actually read them this time.
Oh godlessness, not this stuff... Gimme a post #, if you don't mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 07:25 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,764 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I didn't understand much of that, but I grasped at least an uncharitable and slanderous misrepresentation of the atheist mindset which gives you a cue for bashing it. Thanks for your even -handed and fair - minded assessment of all us atheists.
All anyone needs to do is look up words and terms they don't understand, and it would be realized the referred to world view alongside the explaining, not only has nothing to do with emerging from atheism, but defends atheism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

Last edited by Drew K; 06-02-2014 at 08:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 07:30 PM
 
Location: USA
15,906 posts, read 8,181,103 times
Reputation: 2103
Quote:
Originally Posted by WSPHXPELON View Post
My son is 5 years old. Ever since he was born I have been asking myself how I am going to educate him in regard to religion...My wife's side of the family are fairly Catholic. My mother-in-law had my son baptized when he was a baby (I did not protest). Well, I had finally decided that what I would tell my son regarding "God" would be that I would just avoid the subject and/or "play it off" like I was a believer when the subject came up...

Well, today, for the first time ever, my son started asking me questions about God. I just couldn't make myself betray my son by feeding him lies. I told him the truth, that God, "is not real"; and I explained that some people believe very strongly that God does exist but that my personal belief which I feel to be true is that God does not exist.

Well, he was okay with it. He said, "Okay, God isn't real. Only Santa Claus is real and he is the one that takes care of us, right?" So, I had already broken the news to him about God (the big lie), so I broke the news to him about Santa Claus as well. I told him that Santa Claus is not real either and that the presents are from me and my wife. I told him that the only people that will "take care of us", are us; and that is why we must be good people and value and appreciate each other and our families. He seemed very understanding and none of it seemed to upset him the slightest.

Long story short, did I just mess up?? Should I have let the facade carried on for years??

What do you think? How have you handled raising children being an Atheist? Please just share some thoughts on this topic because it has really been bothering me....

I don't think you "messed up". I mean, if the child asked you specifically what you think, then it's not wrong to express your opinion. On the other hand, if the child was just asking general god-questions, I wonder if it would be better to just ask your child, "What do you think?" Sometimes, as parents, I think we need to say a lot less than we do (at least, I find that to be true in my own experience.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ/Amagansett, NY
11,018 posts, read 10,216,174 times
Reputation: 7778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew K View Post
All anyone needs to do is look up words and terms they don't understand, and it would be realized the referred to world view not only has nothing to do with emerging from atheism, but defends atheism. If you want I can dumb it down, but even if successful I'm not oblivious to recognizing a refusal to understand. A person needs to have talent for these things, not from reading or writing books or education, raw ability. Perception, translation.. you know artistic things. I should do a thread on how to translate a painting, its not even my training but its a good start on how, to get at things and information. Anyway so it goes.
I don't think you are using words that people don't understand. It is the way you put the words together that is confusing. If using proper english and writing in complete and unbroken sentences is "dumbing it down", then maybe you should dumb it down. I'm sure it would be appreciated by most people trying to follow the conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 08:07 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,764 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
I don't think you are using words that people don't understand. It is the way you put the words together that is confusing. If using proper english and writing in complete and unbroken sentences is "dumbing it down", then maybe you should dumb it down. I'm sure it would be appreciated by most people trying to follow the conversation.

( this below to replace last two posts for better explaining)

if the first sentence is read in the post being ridiculed, the post above is being referred to, the post above asks a question and the problem is I don't believe the philosophy enclosed in the post is atheist, but a confused view.

but the question assumes to be an atheist issue,

I don't believe the philosophical view enclosed in the post emerges out of atheism, but thinks it does.

Atheism is only a minor circumstance of the given philosophy in the entry being replied to, and I believe it can be shown and was. There are other ways but speedy reading is popular I think. Plus the post itself I replied to was in disagreement already with an atheist perspective.

(I initially started writing and explaining a couple of times but stopped, because of a gut notion on speed reading. So got right to the facts, no big deal and thanks for quoting.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

Last edited by Drew K; 06-02-2014 at 09:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 09:39 PM
 
122 posts, read 79,764 times
Reputation: 23
I don't believe in opinion this is atheism. And it is introduced in the post with a question which assumes to belong to atheism. Plus I don't really care that much about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
You are mistakenly conflating your ability to subjectively find goals and meanings in life.... with life actually having that attribute of meaning. They are different things.



Again no, but actually thinking that this means life HAS meaning is the error you seem to make.

Last edited by Drew K; 06-02-2014 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top