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.
Well, with your post, you have clearly demonstrated that you have not read what they have said about themselves and their journeys from belief to non-belief. You should. Then you wouldn't say things like "Isn't dogma the core reason that causes atheists to question the existence of God in the first place?" or "I can't see how one person believing a higher power causes that much pain for someone else." Some of them have had their entire families and communities disown and shun them because they lost their faith. Others had enormous internal conflicts when they realized that they could no longer believe what was being taught in their church. "Heart wrenching" is barely a strong enough term to describe what some have gone through.
Part of the problem is that Atheists label themselves as such. Even if they are Agnostic. It would be better to use a different kind of label because the definition that many of you use is that you are "agnostic atheists" but still use the word Atheist, and most people think of it as *Gnostic* atheism.
So there is somewhat of a miscommunication on the side of Atheists. They bring stigma onto themselves because of that, and even I don't understand why they would use the label when they are agnostic. And I'm the one who hangs out with atheists and have always had many atheist friends my entire life and doesn't regard them any differently. So if anyone should understand the label then I should. But I don't. I don't understand why you say you don't believe in higher power, yet you don't deny the possibility. There is something discrepant between the label and the definition.
Also, atheism is not just an attack on a particular religion or denomination, or on the cultural religion. It's an attack on the universal creator. The universal creator unites people because with a common Father, people see each other as brothers. So it's like you are breaking down the brotherhood of humanity.
I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone, just trying to help some see how people might misunderstand most atheists.
Part of the problem is that Atheists label themselves as such. Even if they are Agnostic. It would be better to use a different kind of label because the definition that many of you use is that you are "agnostic atheists" but still use the word Atheist, and most people think of it as *Gnostic* atheism.
Of course.
It's the fault of atheists that they use a correct term that 1) has a stigma attached to it, and 2) most people are ignorant of the definition of that term and think it is something else.
And atheists should cater to the stigmatizing ignorati by not using that correct term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
So there is somewhat of a miscommunication on the side of Atheists. They bring stigma onto themselves because of that, and even I don't understand why they would use the label when they are agnostic. And I'm the one who hangs out with atheists and have always had many atheist friends my entire life and doesn't regard them any differently. So if anyone should understand the label then I should. But I don't. I don't understand why you say you don't believe in higher power, yet you don't deny the possibility. There is something discrepant between the label and the definition.
You openly concede that most people confuse the term 'agnostic atheist', and then blame atheists for it. You are fundamentally dishonest. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Also, atheism is not just an attack on a particular religion or denomination, or on the cultural religion. It's an attack on the universal creator. The universal creator unites people because with a common Father, people see each other as brothers. So it's like you are breaking down the brotherhood of humanity.
More fundamental dishonesty. Atheism is no more an 'attack' on a creator than not being a Muslim is an 'attack' on Muhammad... or, to turn your ridiculousness completely around, no more than being a theist is an 'attack' on non-theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone, just trying to help some see how people might misunderstand most atheists.
No, you're blaming atheists for the ignorance of others and intentionally misconstruing non-belief as an attack. That in itself is a deliberate and blatant attack on your part. You pull this nonsense incessantly, and then you think that so long as you deny doing precisely what you just did, you'll get away with it.
That's not how logic works. You can say "Up is down. But I'm not saying up is down!" all you want, but it doesn't mean people aren't going to call out such nonsense for what it is.
Part of the problem is that Atheists label themselves as such. Even if they are Agnostic. It would be better to use a different kind of label because the definition that many of you use is that you are "agnostic atheists" but still use the word Atheist, and most people think of it as *Gnostic* atheism.
So there is somewhat of a miscommunication on the side of Atheists. They bring stigma onto themselves because of that, and even I don't understand why they would use the label when they are agnostic. And I'm the one who hangs out with atheists and have always had many atheist friends my entire life and doesn't regard them any differently. So if anyone should understand the label then I should. But I don't. I don't understand why you say you don't believe in higher power, yet you don't deny the possibility. There is something discrepant between the label and the definition.
Also, atheism is not just an attack on a particular religion or denomination, or on the cultural religion. It's an attack on the universal creator. The universal creator unites people because with a common Father, people see each other as brothers. So it's like you are breaking down the brotherhood of humanity.
I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone, just trying to help some see how people might misunderstand most atheists.
"Atheist" is not a name chosen by atheists to wear. Atheist is a definition. It means to be without theology. I do not believe in the existence of God, which makes me an atheist by definition. I am not ashamed of that.
lmao, you just did what you accused me of ... lmao, now that is ironical.
you went on the attack, pretty hard, and now you back off. i am ok with actually. its a sign that my claim is probably more valid than the hard core anti-god claims. My guess is that you won't want to compare our actual claims. It won't end very well for the anti-god thumpers. it never does.
That was a quick post as I was heading out the door to work. It wasn’t an acknowledgment of surrender. I don’t agree with very much you say. Since you seem to be asking, I have a few additional comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
no, I left the whole post to make sure I didn't pick and choose. Yes, I focused on one sect in this post. that isn't quite doing the same as you are presenting.
But you do have a point. yes, i tend to focus one a particule sect of atheism that causes trouble just like I pick a particular sect of theist. I do not like millimental atheists and I do not like fundamental theists. I think they are the same personality trait that cause us regulars a ton of needless trouble.
You keep attempting to coin millimental. It doesn’t seem to be working. You also have not proven any sort of trouble, either by theists or atheists. This is a discussion forum, presenting viewpoints is the entire purpose. You don’t seem to have convinced anybody that your viewpoint is correct, but that doesn’t mean there is trouble
Quote:
I also was raised christian and had no ill effects from religion. I am convinced that banning religion starts to take rights from people far past what would be considered acceptable.
You seem to have a reasonable amount of annoyance, concern or rage against what you consider both extremes. As I noted earlier, I am not an advocate of banning religion, nor do I think most other posters are either. Rafius might be, but I think he might be the only one.
Quote:
i have no choice but to look at countries that ban religion as my compassision. because we have no other comparison.
What does this even mean? We have lots of comparisons. We have officially atheist states, officially religious states, and officially neutral states. They follow different religions, and have varying levels of religiousity. How much more diversity would you want, or is even possible?
Quote:
Secular states tend to tax charity, something I am totally against. if you can keep secular organizations out of taxes, then maybe. separation of secular organizations and state kind of thing.
I have never looked into tax law of secular nations, and I suspect you haven’t done more than a peripheral scan either. It doesn’t really matter though. Neither your opinion or mine on other counties tax laws is particularly important or influential, and tax law is quite complex in any case. There are potentially good reasons for not allowing charitable tax deductions. Not sure what this really has to do with religion in any case.
Quote:
heck, look at trans, mord, and others when they take control. all i believe is in a biosphere as life. I have data that supports that. because somebody like you hates religion my stance is smashed, imprisoned, and killed? are you kidding?
How have I smashed your stance, much less imorisoned or killed you? How have any of the posters you mention taken over? Are you living in the same reality as the rest of us?
Quote:
na, completely secular would not be better. It completely lost sight of what it means to be human. I mean look around the world and history and show me a great secular society that ruled?
Depends on what you mean by secular. Effectively most of Europe is secular. We have had a few totalitarian societies that suppressed religion as a means of control, I haven’t seen anybody advocate for that. I can show you a few theocracies that we migh5 agree are problematic.
Quote:
like i said, i haven't met one, not one, hard core anti-religion that doesn't have an axe to grind. I also am a firm believer in separation of church and state. I haven't met one on cd that doesn't have a loved one, friend, or event that they aren't pointing to. The ones that don't say anything know once they do, the gig is up.
Your personal experience isn’t universal. Sorry you live in a toxic environment. It seems to have had a negative impact on you.
Part of the problem is that Atheists label themselves as such. Even if they are Agnostic. It would be better to use a different kind of label because the definition that many of you use is that you are "agnostic atheists" but still use the word Atheist, and most people think of it as *Gnostic* atheism.
So there is somewhat of a miscommunication on the side of Atheists. They bring stigma onto themselves because of that, and even I don't understand why they would use the label when they are agnostic. And I'm the one who hangs out with atheists and have always had many atheist friends my entire life and doesn't regard them any differently. So if anyone should understand the label then I should. But I don't. I don't understand why you say you don't believe in higher power, yet you don't deny the possibility. There is something discrepant between the label and the definition.
Also, atheism is not just an attack on a particular religion or denomination, or on the cultural religion. It's an attack on the universal creator. The universal creator unites people because with a common Father, people see each other as brothers. So it's like you are breaking down the brotherhood of humanity.
I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone, just trying to help some see how people might misunderstand most atheists.
Thank you so much for your help.
I am now an atheist. I see no convincing evidence of a god. But, I could be wrong. Perhaps some evidence will come along to make me change my mind.
It was at some point in 2017, I don't remember when. I evolved very slowly from fundamentalist Christian to atheist. At first I became disillusioned with evangelical Christianity due to the hypocrisy and the fakeness of people in the church. I also became confused by the various conflicting beliefs and how everyone believes they are right. You have thousands of denominations that cannot agree on what exactly a single book says. I tried liberal Christianity for a bit but I couldn't reconcile it with my fundamentalist worldview which demands a literal reading of the Bible. Then I did the backslidden Christian thing for a while and that turned into agnosticism, especially after I started watching Steve Shives and Darkmatter videos. Finally in 2017 I admitted I was atheist.
"Atheist" is not a name chosen by atheists to wear. Atheist is a definition. It means to be without theology. I do not believe in the existence of God, which makes me an atheist by definition. I am not ashamed of that.
Yes, atheism is definitional, not ideological. But those steeped in ideology have a failure of comprehension over that distinction.
"Without belief in god(s)", literally, means without belief BTW. It is not active disbelief. Increasingly, it is becoming my position that if you can't stake a knowledge claim for or against deities (agnostic), you can't stake a belief claim for or against either. However, those are philosophical distinctions, not practical ones. Seeing no valid reason to afford belief to gods, seeing the existence of any sort of deity as highly unlikely, has the same practical effect as disbelief, and tends to take one beyond philosophical skepticism. However ... in terms of philosophically supportable views, lack of belief is where it's at. Non-falsifiability cuts both ways.
I believe it to be absurd that a Christian in a first world country believes he is supernaturally blessed when he finds his car keys or gets a job, while millions starve to death in rest of the world.
Is it God's fault millions of children are starving to death or is it the greed of man?
If god is omnipotent, then it is self-evidently god’s fault.
The majority of what is wrong in this world falls into the hands of men. You don't believe in God so how can it be his fault, he does not exist.
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.
