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.
The negative connection has to do with some people believing that a god provided rules or laws for everyone to follow. Since atheists don't believe in a god, to these people, it must mean a lack of adherence to those rules (or laws). In general, being disobedient is not a good look as demonstrated by those who are not atheists.
If God provides rules and laws for everyone to follow, He is doing a weak job of it. Instead of wasting commandments on worshiping Him, imagine the pain and suffering that humanity would have been spared if God had inserted two other commandments instead:
1. Though shalt not own other humans as property.
2. Though shalt not commit genocide.
Omitting these two commandments seems pretty short sighted for an omniscient Being. Unless of course these "lost" commandments were on the tablet that Moses dropped.
Acknowledge your deceit, Harry. It is not a lack of credible evidence from theists. It is a lack of evidence from religious BELIEFS about God. You conveniently conflate the two to make your refutations possible.
If God provides rules and laws for everyone to follow, He is doing a weak job of it. Instead of wasting commandments on worshiping Him, imagine the pain and suffering that humanity would have been spared if God had inserted two other commandments instead:
1. Though shalt not own other humans as property.
2. Though shalt not commit genocide.
Omitting these two commandments seems pretty short sighted for an omniscient Being. Unless of course these "lost" commandments were on the tablet that Moses dropped.
Acknowledge your deceit, Harry. It is not a lack of credible evidence from theists.
No, it is lack of credible evidence from theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is a lack of evidence from religious BELIEFS about God. You conveniently conflate the two to make your refutations possible.
No, it is a lack of evidence for the traits of your god. Such as how a conscious intelligence functions without a brain? The deceit is in your usual word games and misrepresentations.
Rather, I appeal to you to stop attacking and traducing your fellow -atheists (as in fact you are doing here) just because you disapprove of the campaign to change society.
You see how we differ and we are both atheist.
atheist, as per trans, logically evaluate claims based on logic and reason.
Now look at how you responded?
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
we have to be careful here. What does atheist that are pro theist mean? atheist that question the belief of other atheist? Does it mean atheist that just don't tow the party line? does it mean atheist that don't deny everything?
what's that term mean?
what about people that say one is wrong based on things like "They are questioning us"? "they don't have the same goal as us."
does that mean we are pro-theist?
Now, I have to translate here, but your meaning is clear. whoever the 'pro theist' is, you are depicting the Other kind of atheist - "the belief of other atheists" "atheist that ... tow (sic) the party line", "atheist that ... deny everything". Who are these atheists that you find such (unfair) fault with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
listen ... trans makes good points. He spot on about religion and faith. we just have to be careful of primary goals.
This makes it clear - the one with the 'primary goals' (pushing religion out of society) that you disapprove of.
Do you want further evidence of this really needless dislike of 'New' atheism on your part, or shall I find some more explicit examples?
for example, the almost unrecognisable Bash below.
Acknowledge your deceit, Harry. It is not a lack of credible evidence from theists. It is a lack of evidence from religious BELIEFS about God. You conveniently conflate the two to make your refutations possible.
again ... definition vs how people express it.
force us into binary thinking
only talk about a deity
any prediction/talk out side of deity is not taken well,
activism decides reliability. What theist could use, even its is rational, tagged strawman
do not talk about aligning a belief to what science studies.
if you question any one of us you are questioning all of us.
Nothing in the definition says any that stuff that we see here.
Activism is exciting and we are passionate about it. yeah, I guess so, when activism starts to control how we present and talk about spirituality in terms of reliable beliefs, well ... we are just boring and repeating ourselves. repeating anti-religion and Christians suck 10,000 times are not repeating at all.
when do we say OK, some theist are completely out of hand but we are talking amongst ourselves? lets just be honest?
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
we have to be careful here. What does atheist that are pro theist mean? atheist that question the belief of other atheist? Does it mean atheist that just don't tow the party line? does it mean atheist that don't deny everything?
what's that term mean?
what about people that say one is wrong based on things like "They are questioning us"? "they don't have the same goal as us."
does that mean we are pro-theist?
Now, I have to translate here, but your meaning is clear. whoever the 'pro theist' is, you are depicting the Other kind of atheist - "the belief of other atheists" "atheist that ... tow (sic) the party line", "atheist that ... deny everything". Who are these atheists that you find such (unfair) fault with?
This makes it clear - the one with the 'primary goals' (pushing religion out of society) that you disapprove of.
Do you want further evidence of this really needless dislike of 'New' atheism on your part, or shall I find some more explicit examples?
Your primary goal here is to push religion out of society.
that is a political agenda. And I have zero problem with it when you present it as such. Its souldnt be in here. when we have to shut down threads because they are not binary in only telling theist how wrong they are about a deity ... well, yoiu know trans.
You claim I have something against atheism. I don't. atheism definition is its definition and I am an atheist. I have a problem with how some atheist limit discussion on things like: what might be "the mystery of life" because it began to ... do what exactly? Hurt your atheism?
just why is talking about that meaningless to you but it most certainty is meaningful to people in spirituality?
And ... to top it off ... it had evidence. you may not agree with it ... but you most certainty saw it. ashiest are logical bunch. thats for damn sure.
You know I know that you know I know you know that you know.
You can't even reword it to sell it to me trans. And I am easy to sell to, I am a sucker when you have stone cold logic. anything but "We obscure some things because we really see a need for social change."
thats what you are telling is the reason that you think I am anti-atheist? really trans?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 12-03-2020 at 10:48 AM..
Your primary goal here is to push religion out of society.
that is a political agenda. And I have zero problem with it when you present it as such. Its souldnt be in here.
when we have to shut down threads because they are not binary in only telling theist how wrong they are about a deity ... well, yoiu know trans.
You know I know that you know I know you know that you know.
Of course it should be here..on the forum at least, though Not dragged into the definition of atheism (as such) as you repeatedly did.
The stuff about "shut down threads because they are not binary in only telling theist how wrong they are about a deity" is just a bash. 'Binary' is explained as God is real or not, one can believe, or not. it is a logical situation, not an attack to be used to shut down threads.
force us into binary thinking
only talk about a deity
any prediction/talk out side of deity is not taken well,
activism decides reliability. What theist could use, even its is rational, tagged strawman
do not talk about aligning a belief to what science studies.
if you question any one of us you are questioning all of us.
Nothing in the definition says any that stuff that we see here.
Activism is exciting and we are passionate about it. yeah, I guess so, when activism starts to control how we present and talk about spirituality in terms of reliable beliefs, well ... we are just boring and repeating ourselves. repeating anti-religion and Christians suck 10,000 times are not repeating at all.
when do we say OK, some theist are completely out of hand but we are talking amongst ourselves? lets just be honest?
The only repetition that is bothersome here is the repetition of valid theist arguments that contravene the prevailing atheist orthodoxy here in the forum because the monotonous atheist drivel that is repeated here ad nauseum never seems to bother anyone enough to close threads.
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.
for example, the almost unrecognisable Bash below.