Atheism = just another belief system? (preach, confess, theologians, meaning)
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.
I disagree that it's watered down to make it anything. When they read the Bible that's what they see. I saw something completely different than the orthodox family against family Jesus when I read it by myself. If anything the truth the Bible reveals is a truth about ourselves when we read it. Edit: Thank you for this. I find this very accurate. Atheism, especially as presented here, makes no comparable truth claims, has no gospel to protect and promote. An atheist has no particular reason to care what species of atheist someone else is. In the abstract, an atheist has no particular reason to care if someone else is a theist or what species of theist she is.
bold above
yes. bingo.
now if it was only put it into practice. on CD. in the forum, in the threads.
regarding the statement "In the abstract, an atheist has no particular reason to care if someone else is a theist or what species of theist she is", well, if someone doesn't care about something, then they don't put a lot of time, thought, energy, and attention into it.
for instance i don't care about wrestling, football, auto repair, fashion, weather, politics, or economics, so i don't spend time in those sections of the forum and i don't post there. and i don't tell the people who do post there and who do discuss those areas of interest how ridiculous those topics are and all the things wrong with those topics, and list what's wrong with the people who pursue those topics.
if someone doesn't care about believers, believing, and paths of religion and spirituality, then they wouldn't post hundreds or thousands of posts on the topic they don't care about. conversely, posting hundreds of posts, thousands of posts, on god, religion, spirituality indicates they do care about it. very much.
so that is one example of what it would like if an atheist does not care if others are believers, or what type of believer they are.
regarding the statement "In the abstract, an atheist has no particular reason to care if someone else is a theist or what species of theist she is", well, if someone doesn't care about something, then they don't put a lot of time, thought, energy, and attention into it.
for instance i don't care about wrestling, football, auto repair, fashion, weather, politics, or economics, so i don't spend time in those sections of the forum and i don't post there. and i don't tell the people who do post there and who do discuss those areas of interest how ridiculous those topics are and all the things wrong with those topics, and list what's wrong with the people who pursue those topics.
if someone doesn't care about believers, believing, and paths of religion and spirituality, then they wouldn't post hundreds or thousands of posts on the topic they don't care about. conversely, posting hundreds of posts, thousands of posts, on god, religion, spirituality indicates they do care about it. very much.
so that is one example of what it would like if an atheist does not care if others are believers, or what type of believer they are.
And yet here you are on the atheist subform talking about how ridiculous we are.
I wouldn't care if I had grown up in a non-destructive Christain belief system. I may still even be a believer if not for that. I was forced to care. I like it that other people help me sort that out. I'm very glad people speak up, if not to change the minds of believers, but to help people who have been spiritually abused. I like when they pick apart the logic because I didn't know how to do that.
He is correct that I (most of us) don't care what someone believes about God. We do care when that starts to encroach on other people. As far as dogma goes tho, it doesn't matter. I like the humanist viewpoint and don't like the elitists viewpoint. What viewpoint they have determines if I want to engage with them. No one is going to be eternally rewarded for the correct answer or punished for the wrong one.
This pretty much captures the essential issue with the mindless definition of atheism as mere lack of belief as if that does not entail any actual beliefs that impact interactions with Reality.
It also means that if you get in a car to drive, you must also rationally think of the possible alternatives to having a safe journey. But people do not think like that. But do not let another real world example get in the way of your usual assertions.
And yet here you are on the atheist subform talking about how ridiculous we are.
I wouldn't care if I had grown up in a non-destructive Christain belief system. I may still even be a believer if not for that. I was forced to care. I like it that other people help me sort that out. I'm very glad people speak up, if not to change the minds of believers, but to help people who have been spiritually abused. I like when they pick apart the logic because I didn't know how to do that.
He is correct that I (most of us) don't care what someone believes about God. We do care when that starts to encroach on other people. As far as dogma goes tho, it doesn't matter. I like the humanist viewpoint and don't like the elitists viewpoint. What viewpoint they have determines if I want to engage with them. No one is going to be eternally rewarded for the correct answer or punished for the wrong one.
Good post.
Based on what others have said, they are here because their belief does have an impact on their interactions with reality. While what I believe does have an impact on me, I try to keep it in my mind which leaves others guessing what I might be thinking and inferring the kind of person I am. That is their right no matter how loud I shout my declarations on my character.
For example, if my daughter tells me she did her homework the way it is expected, instead of acting on my belief that "no, she rarely does her homework as expected," I just increase my interest in what she is doing and ask her to explain it to me. The conversation is a physical reality as sound moves through the air and into my eardrum. The final destination is the processer in my head. Then I can have an opinion on whether or not she met expectations.
This falls in line with my approach on whether or not I believe in a god. I haven't met one through my senses and so I have no opinion on the matter. Yet that statement alone defines me as a person for many others in a negative way.
A major difference between the two is that I asked my daughter to demonstrate what she has learned. In the second scenario, it is somebody asking me if I believe in a god or not.
regarding the statement "In the abstract, an atheist has no particular reason to care if someone else is a theist or what species of theist she is", well, if someone doesn't care about something, then they don't put a lot of time, thought, energy, and attention into it.
for instance i don't care about wrestling, football, auto repair, fashion, weather, politics, or economics, so i don't spend time in those sections of the forum and i don't post there. and i don't tell the people who do post there and who do discuss those areas of interest how ridiculous those topics are and all the things wrong with those topics, and list what's wrong with the people who pursue those topics.
if someone doesn't care about believers, believing, and paths of religion and spirituality, then they wouldn't post hundreds or thousands of posts on the topic they don't care about. conversely, posting hundreds of posts, thousands of posts, on god, religion, spirituality indicates they do care about it. very much.
so that is one example of what it would like if an atheist does not care if others are believers, or what type of believer they are.
The vast majority of the members of City-Data who are atheists do not post in this forum. Whenever the topic of religion comes up in another forum, it's surprising how many people say they don't believe. A small percentage of the non-believers come here and post. Some think it is interesting. Some struggled when they left religion. Some (like L8) were shunned by their church and their family. In short, there are a variety of reasons people post here.
You repeat this like a mynah bird, but "providing evidence" is the one thing it seems to me that you rather emphatically don't do - ever, anywhere.
If you insist on being dishonest about that, shall I provide the evidence that ID is creationism for the fourth time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Can you steer me to some of your evidence? What is it evidence of, in your opinion?
Get some creme ready, this is going to burn.
There is the above ID / creationism evidence.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/62032839-post95.html is where my in depth knowledge of neural networks showed not only that Mystic was faking his alleged knowledge, but also that he appears to have reading comprehension problems.
Then there is your Bayes thread you falsely claim I did not respond to.
Then there is the nativity thread where my arguments were not based on what others say, but on actually having read Josephus, and cross checking with Dio Cassius, Strabo, Tacitus, etc. I also used my astronomical knowledge, and data about actual lunar eclipses from that time.
There is also the alleged external witnesses to Jesus thread where once again I did not rely on what someone on a blog said, but used actual source material, from Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, what Phlegon actually wrote (as recorded by Eusebius (I believe in his Church History)), etc.
You see, I have done the work. You are a creationist who links to Gary Habermas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
(BTW, where's that Bayesian refutation of theism I challenged you to favor us with?)
I have the evidence for X, a universe full of it. I have twice asked you for evidence for !X.
You see, I do not play the game where the creationist, sorry, ID proponent asks for evidence, only for them to ignore or dismiss it. I have changed the rules, the creationist needs to also play by doing some work. Otherwise I am not going to waste my time.
So where is your evidence for !X?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Truly like a mynah bird, you just keep repeating yawk "no evidence," yawk "non-substantive," yawk "fallacy" in responses where they plainly don't apply.
Ah, you have me confused with the Habicht, a hunting bird that sometimes screams as it hunts. This is a mistake also made by more intelligent birds, so what chance does the poor Irkle Berserkle have? And because of the poor quality of prey at the moment, this Habicht must hunt the poor Irkle Berserkle bird, easy prey because it is so vocal, but poor prey because it is all plumage but little meat.
You repeat this like a mynah bird, but "providing evidence" is the one thing it seems to me that you rather emphatically don't do - ever, anywhere. Can you steer me to some of your evidence? What is it evidence of, in your opinion? (BTW, where's that Bayesian refutation of theism I challenged you to favor us with?)
Truly like a mynah bird, you just keep repeating yawk "no evidence," yawk "non-substantive," yawk "fallacy" in responses where they plainly don't apply.
I could point out the straw man fallacy here - oops, I guess I just did - but I'll admit the fallacy thing becomes tiresome. I "want it both" - meaning what? I want atheists to be both mindless and Russell clones? How would that work?
I simply pointed out that people like Bertrand Russell and Antony Flew (oops, we don't like him so much anymore, do we?) were atheists of the highest caliber who would've been dismayed at what passes for atheism here. There are, of course, as many gradations in terms of depth of belief within atheism as within Christianity. The fact is, however, that the mindless variety predominates here and the ostensible atheists seem curiously proud of it.
Interesting - aren't you arguing against the predominant atheist position here? I thought exploring alternatives is precisely what good little atheists don't do. I thought they just sort of "don't believe" in a deity and get on with their knitting.
Atheism doesn't attempt to address issues? What does it do - just sort of exist in a vacuum? I'm pretty confident Russell and Flew and probably even Dawkins would disagree with you. Why do atheists haunt the Christianity forum - just bored with TV, or what?
Is it your position that atheism arises out of brain function? I am well-aware of scientific research into the uncertain relationship between religious belief and brain function. For example, when the late Michael Persinger attempted to induce otherworldly experiences in Richard Dawkins via stimulation of the temporal lobe, he was singularly unsuccessful. Dawkins was a temporal lobe dud.
However, are you aware that the Director of the Neurosciences Institute at Stanford University, William Newsome, is a devout Christian? A complete dummy, "He received a BS degree in Physics from Stetson University and a PhD in Biology from the California Institute of Technology. He served on the faculty of the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at SUNY Stony Brook before moving to Stanford in 1988. Dr. Newsome is a leading investigator in the fields of visual and cognitive neuroscience. He co-chaired the NIH working group that planned the US national BRAIN initiative."
Apparently Dr. Newsome is as "ignorant of how the brain works" as poor Irkle. Harry will now provide definitive evidence from his vast store of neuroscience expertise to straighten us out.
No, but they are kind of fun.
As you know, I don't agree with your god belief. I actually think that if these atheist were not solely focused (do to some type of perceived trauma) on fighting every belief because they blindly believe that fighting religion is more important than describing how the universe works to form a belief, that you may actually change.
They don't take their political fight (ffr is a political movement) to the political forum because they know it ends with, "yeah, some religious people bad". And they want more, they want revenge.
But back to how we (most atheist) think ...
Our "atheist" brains work something like
"There has never been a person that died and rose but for the time three people have said it". Why would I ever say one did?
We say things like "sexual preference is really based on the state of the machine. We can change that state to a fair degree sometimes and the behavior changes. Why would we ever say its a sin against humanity.
We think, in a less empirical thought process ... How can we claim god made us then we are damned to forever when we act, as a whole, just like humans?
"alive" does match what we see the best. It addresses your needs and it addresses what atheist claim (no deity made us). It matches so well that the heavily scarred and recovering atheist out for a 1lb of flesh will shun (JW style) even the thought process for it.
But to you ... The system may be alive. But why do we need to go to a deity like the bible god?
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.
This pretty much captures the essential issue with the mindless definition of atheism as mere lack of belief as if that does not entail any actual beliefs that impact interactions with Reality. 
Part 1
