Why I Lost My Christian Faith (create, choices, history, church)
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.
Arach activates his 'Bias' circuit and ascribes to me all manner of dark and cynical motives - just to underpin his prejudiced view of Atheists that he sees as his enemy.
blatant misrepresentation ...
what i actually say.
yes, fundy-think-type atheist are a danger. That personality type is a danger to us all.
yes, anti-religious socialism, your brand of atheism, is a danger to liberty and freedom everywhere
yes, personality types that we would assignto fundy theist are in atheism and they are dangerous to us.
I am only pointing out that a middle left atheist, like myself, doesn't have to follow your sect of atheism's central dogma, of "deny everything" due to your personal emotional needs.
I merely say that it is ok for atheist to use what they know to describe what is going on around them independent of a statement of belief about god. we don't have to change things just because your sect of atheism thinks religion can use it as a springboard.
I merely point out that some atheist, like yourself, describe everything they do based on a statement of belief about god (anti-god) and that the rest of us don't have to focus on "no god". we can just live our lives independent of statement of belief about god.
you only have to tell me where your claim is more valid than those of mine.
you know, since you are all about 'science"?
and in the interest of pointing out where i am biased.
Have you or do you intend to jump in and show us how to do it ?
yeah, as a matter of fact he has. anti-theism (anti-god) and "deny everything to help convert people to atheism", just doesn't have legs. the dogmatic statement of "deny any springboard" is just silly and gets us nowhere.
But some atheist in our ranks suffer from the same ailments of fundy-think-type theist and will never concede anything that doesn't support their limited world views.
No, my mindset is still I-don't-believe-there's-a-god when we argue. It's just also I-don't-believe-the-antitheists-have-a-case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Have you or do you intend to jump in and show us how to do it ?
In theory (I think I know what you're asking), the anti-theist could justify opposition of theism by showing that theism is at least probably false. Indeed, arguments such as the problem of evil, the Euthyphro dilemma, etc. aim at doing just that. The problem is that they're either incomplete arguments, fallacies, or false dilemmas. I liked what Stephen Hawking said about the question of the universe's origin relating to Christianity, as an example. He said that if it could be shown that the universe were probably past-eternal, then there simply wouldn't be any place for a creator and therefore Christianity would be proven plausibly false. The reason this would be a good argument is that it doesn't arbitrarily edit out doctrines within the religion as defenders of certain arguments (like the problem of evil) are inclined to do.
But some atheist in our ranks suffer from the same ailments of fundy-think-type theist and will never concede anything that doesn't support their limited world views.
Names? I see no such atheists here. I don't know of one that has actually said that they would not change their views if verifiable, undeniable evidence that they were wrong were found.
yes, fundy-think-type atheist are a danger. That personality type is a danger to us all.
yes, anti-religious socialism, your brand of atheism, is a danger to liberty and freedom everywhere
yes, personality types that we would assignto fundy theist are in atheism and they are dangerous to us.
I am only pointing out that a middle left atheist, like myself, doesn't have to follow your sect of atheism's central dogma, of "deny everything" due to your personal emotional needs.
I merely say that it is ok for atheist to use what they know to describe what is going on around them independent of a statement of belief about god. we don't have to change things just because your sect of atheism thinks religion can use it as a springboard.
I merely point out that some atheist, like yourself, describe everything they do based on a statement of belief about god (anti-god) and that the rest of us don't have to focus on "no god". we can just live our lives independent of statement of belief about god.
you only have to tell me where your claim is more valid than those of mine.
you know, since you are all about 'science"?
and in the interest of pointing out where i am biased.
You whole post here shows the bias in that you ascribe all kinds of thinking and motives to be that exist only in your own head. The only valid beef you would have is the push against organised religion. If you don't want to do that, it's your choice. I think it's necessary.
When I engage my human mind, what else am I engaging but the reality within it? Energy/mass/momentum...yes, though you may as well talk in terms of relativity as 'adding, subtracting, dividing'. Working together to do what it does. I fail to see what valid point you are making, far less why you should find it 'encouraging', which I rather translate into "Coming around to my way of thinking". You have said that before, and it has been nothing of the kind.
Engaging your human mind means thinking but I am referring to thinking about your "thinking Self" and other cognitive constructs of the mind as real phenomenon NOT illusory. But it is likely to be too far off topic.
yes, fundy-think-type atheist are a danger. That personality type is a danger to us all.
yes, anti-religious socialism, your brand of atheism, is a danger to liberty and freedom everywhere
yes, personality types that we would assignto fundy theist are in atheism and they are dangerous to us.
I am only pointing out that a middle left atheist, like myself, doesn't have to follow your sect of atheism's central dogma, of "deny everything" due to your personal emotional needs.
I merely say that it is ok for atheist to use what they know to describe what is going on around them independent of a statement of belief about god. we don't have to change things just because your sect of atheism thinks religion can use it as a springboard.
I merely point out that some atheist, like yourself, describe everything they do based on a statement of belief about god (anti-god) and that the rest of us don't have to focus on "no god". we can just live our lives independent of statement of belief about god.
you only have to tell me where your claim is more valid than those of mine.
you know, since you are all about 'science"?
and in the interest of pointing out where i am biased.
Thank you for your exploded diagram of your bias and where it comes from. Better than I ever could.
No, my mindset is still I-don't-believe-there's-a-god when we argue. It's just also I-don't-believe-the-antitheists-have-a-case.
Well, perhaps. I have only ever said it was a puzzle, in view of your declaration. But the mindset when you argue is putting yourself into the Godfaith -mindset so perfectly (it even looks instinctive) that it is 'theist -think' even if you are not a theist. I can pretend to be a Theist quite well, but not as good as that. So, it's a puzzle.
Quote:
Incoherent.
It was. It should have read: "What a mix of claims that do not go together. Atheism and theism are not persons; they are a body of thought and that body of thought makes claims which a theist or atheist will probably make." Now I wouldn't say that was 'incoherent' because it will set others saying "Well I get that - why doesn't Vic?"
Quote:
It is a claim some atheists have made, yes, right along with "God is a delusion".
You conflate two different arguments. The God -claim is without merit. The rejection of the claim is valid as the burden of proof is on the claimant - the God -believer.
'God is a delusion' is a claim that is a hypothesis based on some quite convincing evidence. God is not a delusion (where it is in the human head} Is a claim and without merit. So you have the god -claim, whether as Creator or in the mind as Faith -claims equally without merit and the rejection of the claim as a logically sound position and the mental delusion as a hypothesis with evidential merit. Three quite different propositions.
Quote:
It is a claim some atheists have made, yes, right along with "God is a delusion".
Damn' you're right again. Yes, some say that indoctrinating children with religion is 'Child abuse'. But you must see that child indoctrination being seen as a form of 'abuse' (I see it as abuse of adults, too) is Not the same as sexual abuse (for instance) of children with religion as an enabler and a cover. The religion itself in not the abuse. Now I do hope that is clear and you not make yourself look crafty by trying to make that need for clarification a point for you, because it isn't.
Quote:
It is no more/less, necessarily, a claim of certainty than when the theists say "There's a god".
If only the Theists would see it that way. Unfortunately, they bring Faith into the equation.
Quote:
And when it is that, it is also unfounded, since there isn't any evidence to help issue in the conclusion that god doesn't/probably doesn't exist.
You are reversing the burden of proof, which in itself validates the non -belief position; you are ignoring the negative evidence of a world where no evidence for a god can really be validated, and finally, conflating the various 'God' -claims.
Quote:
I'd like to know just how you figure theism is being driven "from the debating -field". And of course, it's a non sequitur anyway. All it would show is that anti-theists are generally more skilled debaters than theists. So what?
Aside from how we are ruling the roost here (it wasn't always like that) and you are being trounced but keep pegging away at the same denial, online, you can see the arguments going down, from I/D at Dover, the Morality argument, Bible veracity, First cause - it's all being beat. That they ignore or deny it is irrelevant.
Quote:
I can't believe you keep peddling all this "we" talk. Atheists do not all communicate or define these terms the same way! Or, if we have a bible which gives us such rules to follow, I haven't received my copy yet?
I think that you'll find that we do, since the atheists that I have interacted with know the difference between Belief (based on experience if not evidence) is not the same as Faith without decent evidence and indeed in spite of it. Again a puzzle that you not only seem completely ignorant of atheist thought, but refuse to take it on board even when it is explained to you.
Quote:
So of course defining terms is important. And if we define "faith" as "belief without evidence", then I'll simply remind you that evidentialism is (still) dead.
And I'll remind you that this irrelevant (philosophic) 'evidentialism' ploy is a dead duck and you just make yourself look ridiculous when you keep bringing it up as though it is anything else.
Quote:
Nonsense. It only makes those specific claims fail (if indeed they do, you're being quite vague).
Don't be absurd. Of course any claim is going to have various aspects to it, and the refutations are going to address each point. The fact is, however that ID was debunked in whole and in part at the 'Dover' trial, in science and Law, and the First cause claim Fails at base, being based on a God claim, which is a faith -claim. The various arguments used for First case all have their different rebuttals - some better than others.
Quote:
One could just as easily reverse this statement on you: The belief that there is no moral management is a faith claim, not based on evidence but rather explaining away the way it looks (e.g. Karma) using unvalidated faith claims. Again, people see what they want to see on this issue; neither side has any basis for their beliefs here.
Again, the theistic mindset and again ignoring something that you accepted 'There is evil in the world and nothing (apparently) is being done about it'. It is very Theistic to simply forget what you accepted just a few posts ago. The (negative) evidence of anything intervening to make the world better gives disbelief the default, and anything adduced without supportive evidence to 'explain' that in divine terms, is a Faith -claim.
Quote:
So your argument is, "The theists should stop believing... because they can"? Again, these people feel like they have reasons to believe. They're personal experiences if nothing else. Yes, they could write them off as something befitting an atheistic worldview, but they can also believe there's a god. You're making it sound as if they should do it your way instead, but giving no reason other than they can.
Yes. Their choice, of course. The debates are all about 'their reasons to believe' and why we think they don't stack up. They can buy our arguments, or reject them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-14-2019 at 05:06 AM..
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.
