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.
What atrocities were committed in the name of Atheism? Remember, you said atheist atrocities, not atrocities that were simply absent religion. What are the atrocities attributed to the cause of atheism?
The same exact ones are what I was implying. But thank you for clarifying about the severity of the absence of religion.
Does anybody have an Arach to English translator? None of this post makes any sense.
you are openly denying that some atheist won't give any notion, no matter how valid, a "springboard" if it can give theist something to use and make atheism harder to sell.
this doesn't address the facts, it addresses a person opinion. as valid, or invalid, as any theist basing their claim on personal need not based on the reality of the situation.
I can't respect anti-religion, of the flavor you seem to present, anymore than I can respect JW's rights to express there beliefs.
I shall have to leave you to your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I'm sorry that you can pretend to ignore the atheist atrocities of the 20th century. Which make those look like Disneyland in comparison.
Which are...? Please don't reference the instigators of devastating or genocidal policies of the various Marxist dictators who were pursuing a policy of unquestionable Dogma rather than atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The same exact ones are what I was implying. But thank you for clarifying about the severity of the absence of religion.
You will have to clarify what you were 'implying', though I can guess what you have in mind. I repeat - that was Marxist dogma which happened to have irreligion as part of the dogma, but the irreligion did not - so far as I know - lead to any of the atrocities; the ruthless application of Marxist policy (e.g, collectivisation) did. You can't lay the blame for that on atheism.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-30-2019 at 06:19 AM..
If anyone decides - nothing useful then...as I said...do something else. That you turned into me saying that discussion wasn't to be allowed.
Not at all. I said you suggested they go do something else, which you did, even though they weren't saying all discussion (or even all criticism) was what bored them.
Quote:
The problem of evil is one that Theism is most unwilling to concede, and yet it has been better handled by the skeptic side since the 'morality written on our hearts' tells us that God allowing evil is immoral.
No one (including the Christians or their bible) ever claimed that we would have a perfect moral sense. And of course, we are in position to know whether god could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. That's just assumed by the problem of evil argument; it's never established, as I said.
Quote:
The attempt to make us responsible with Free Will doesn't work. So the Theists end up by saying that God's morality is beyond us, it makes sense to Him if not to us and he can do what he likes. These are evasions, excuses and big bully.
Call them what you like; what matters to me is that they're true. You're attacking the Christians' adoption of this truth, but surely that can't be your rebuttal because you know what that would mean...
Quote:
Indeed 'problem of evil' is cited (in deconversion stories) as one of the more frequent reasons for believers questioning.
Which means it's rhetorically effective, not that it's a good logical argument...
Quote:
Wrong. Atheism does not make a claim beyond not accepting the god - claim and no burden of proof other than to say why we do not accept it.
Another straw man. I never said atheists/atheism has this burden of proof. But for those atheists/forms of atheism that claim there is no god, yes. Especially anti-theism, since it opposes a worldview. It needs to justify that opposition.
Quote:
According to acts (which I do not believe for a second) God intervened pretty soundly to convert Paul - so why can't that be done with everyone?
No one's saying he couldn't. My point is that no one's showing that he should.
Quote:
I agree and that is why atheists do tend to have concerns about democracy, freedom, ethics, welfare..all that nasty liberal stuff. The Other side feel they can leave it to God.
Eh. I've seen apathy from "our side" as well, and theists rallying for these other virtues and ideals you mention. I know you very much want to paint this as a good guys vs. bad guys situation, but it just doesn't work on thinking people.
Quote:
It is our mission.
Now, are you talking about anti-theists here, or atheists? Because you've conflated them before, and I wanted to make sure you weren't trying to pidgeonhole me into your network of crazy rantings
you are openly denying that some atheist won't give any notion, no matter how valid, a "springboard" if it can give theist something to use and make atheism harder to sell.
is that what you are saying?
I still need that translator. This post makes no sense.
Not at all. I said you suggested they go do something else, which you did, even though they weren't saying all discussion (or even all criticism) was what bored them.
Ok, I get that. In which case I modify the comment to not engaging with those sorts of posts. It makes no difference to us continuing with them.
[quote]No one (including the Christians or their bible) ever claimed that we would have a perfect moral sense. And of course, we are in position to know whether god could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. That's just assumed by the problem of evil argument; it's never established, as I said.[quote]
I'm sure that you have seen claims that religion makes people better. It may make them more Christian, but the results seem to require Christian apologists to less claim them as evidence for a God behind this, making people better, than to wave away the ones that are not better so as to maintain the idea that religion makes people better.
Quote:
Call them what you like; what matters to me is that they're true. You're attacking the Christians' adoption of this truth, but surely that can't be your rebuttal because you know what that would mean...
It cannot be claimed that they are true (any more than your claim to be atheist stands up in view of the last remark) because evasions and excuses means that they cannot validate their claim. So that what they are not able to validate being claimed as true makes it a Faith -claim, which by it's nature can only be heldf true on Faith (which a reason believe something with no good reason) - not on reason. Big Bully is simply brazening out God's bad behaviour on the grounds that he can do what he likes. This is not morality and to claim that God is thus moral makes a mockery of the term.
Quote:
Which means it's rhetorically effective, not that it's a good logical argument...
It's hardly a matter of rhetoric when these doubters came up with the doubts themselves. This makes it a sound problem for belief in the god of the Bible, and more sound the the evasions, excuses and brazening that Christian apologists have to revert to as the best counters they have.
Quote:
Another straw man. I never said atheists/atheism has this burden of proof. But for those atheists/forms of atheism that claim there is no god, yes. Especially anti-theism, since it opposes a worldview. It needs to justify that opposition.
And I said that an atheist that makes such a claim, has caveats of the kind I mentioned, which means that your objection doesn't apply to atheism or any atheists (I just heard one who professed to 'know' but on it being explained reverted to 'so far as I have reason to believe') at all, so your point was redundant.
Quote:
No one's saying he couldn't. My point is that no one's showing that he should.
But this is just like the problem of evil; a god lets people starve or die and this is somehow glossed over as violating free will, when (the Bible says) he already violated it for less good reasons. The reasons Why God "should" are plain and we see again the evasion and excuses of the problem of Evil. Do you begin to see what a problem it is and that Theism can only come up with wriggling or brazen 'God can do as he likes'?
Quote:
Eh. I've seen apathy from "our side" as well, and theists rallying for these other virtues and ideals you mention. I know you very much want to paint this as a good guys vs. bad guys situation, but it just doesn't work on thinking people.
I'm glad to hear it. I do not want to believe that US Christianity as a whole is Tax breaks for Big Business, prosperity gospel and let the poor whistle for medical attention. But the theism /atheism debate does not rest on social issues after all.
Quote:
Now, are you talking about anti-theists here, or atheists? Because you've conflated them before, and I wanted to make sure you weren't trying to pidgeonhole me into your network of crazy rantings
crazy rantings I like that. it would be anti -religionist rather anti -theist, as atheists aren't anti -god as they don't believe such a being exists, but they know that religion exists and that something should be done about it. Thery are a sub -group (or 'sect' as Arach might say) of atheism, the others not being anti religion. There are some, I suppose, who aren't yet aware of the problem. As for you, I'm rather inclined to pigeonhole you out.
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.
I like that. it would be anti -religionist rather anti -theist, as atheists aren't anti -god as they don't believe such a being exists, but they know that religion exists and that something should be done about it. Thery are a sub -group (or 'sect' as Arach might say) of atheism, the others not being anti religion. There are some, I suppose, who aren't yet aware of the problem. As for you, I'm rather inclined to pigeonhole you out.
