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.
If you think that I'm the only one who has grave doubts about your claim to atheism, you are in considerable error.
And that goes for your theistical arguments, too.
any anti-religious atheist, ei: an atheist that bases their world on anti-religion, will think that anybody that doesn't see things there way isn't a real atheist.
Been refuted; been refuted; they are your arguments you brought to the table, they are not ours.
Refuted indeed. The 'incomplete' problem of evil gets theism nowhere - no more than the 'incomplete' First cause argument. And 'Euthyphro fails' is a claim that is not backed up by anything valid that I have seen. I recall one article that simply said it had failed, and then went on to explain it without giving a decent reason why it failed (In fact I recall it might have been linked by Vic.).
So all he is doing is broken record denial. He couldn't get more Theist -headed if he was one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
comon trans ... even for you this light weight.
You base your choices on a statement of belief about god. more precise, s statement of belief about religion.
I don't base any choice on a statement of belief about god.
That makes you more thirst-in-the-head than me.
basing choices on how you feel about religion is less valid than basing choices on liberty and justice for all people.
You're missing the point. But your argument is a good one. Yes - we are human beans and we do not think logically or rationally. We are not taught to. We are taught from sources, good, bad and indifferent, and everyone with an agenda is trying to ram it down our throats. Preferably from infancy.
Yes - you are quite right - the general atheist or irreligious probably has not become familiar with the arguments. Though they may well have come to some conclusions quite early.
This is the 'raw' atheist one might say, and more 'feelings about religion', as you say, than a validated argument. Such are wide open to a well - crafted evangelical conversion package. We know only too well that the evangelists are very adept at cherry picking, misrepresentation and downright lies in order to make the conversion. "What do a few lies matter if some souls are saved?"
This is where we get our: "I used to be an atheist...like you..." Polemic.
So these better - crafted arguments than the usual bonehead pulpit bible -thumping have to be considered and addressed. And they have been, from Kalam to the resurrection...both the work of Lane -Craig. The work of Theism is now to make sure that these rebuttals never get heard. This is what the drive against 'New' atheism is all about, and you are enabling it more strenuously than many a Christian Fundamentalist that I can think of.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-21-2019 at 07:49 AM..
That limit in understanding makes you guys dangerous.
Exactly! No less dangerous than religious extremists who want to impose their way of thinking (and cram it down our throats). It’s not about forcing opinions on people in a fanatical way - it’s a fight to keep religion out of schools and government.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 02-21-2019 at 09:41 AM..
He taught love, but the real issue is what should WE be teaching? I can see no upside at all to teaching hate.
If christianity exemplified love for all -- even those who are different -- you'd have a good point. But all too often it teaches love for those who are the same as they are.
My point being - you were using a Christian principle as a yardstick by which to imply you should be exempt from a Christian’s emotions - and if you aren’t, then it means they have ‘failed’. In essence, you are holding them to a higher standard (one you don’t believe). I don’t use Christian principles as a way to measure anything, because I’m an atheist. It’s an odd tactic (and sounds self righteous in tone), but I have seen it used often in this forum.
If christianity exemplified love for all -- even those who are different -- you'd have a good point. But all too often it teaches love for those who are the same as they are.
As an atheist (or agnostic, whatever one wants to label me), I disregard Christian teachings. I prefer instead to focus on love, or at least acceptance - rather than hate. And that includes acceptance of Christians. I see the big picture in terms of law.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 02-21-2019 at 09:44 AM..
and thats why people like me will stand against you. we not might win, because we have limits to the destruction we will inflict on others, but we will fight you.
you don't even see that phet is more with you than against you. That limit in understanding makes you guys dangerous.
It is unfortunate that some cannot see that all of us who are on the side of atheism are on a continuum. He's a 9 or 10. I'm more like a 5.
But you're kinda all over the place, and you too often resort to hyperbole, as indicated by using terms such as "destruction".
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.
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.
