Atheism

@Insane Philosopher,

Good point, Insane. It could explain why some of the discussions on here go the way they go.

Good point. I think that's interesting as well.

0 Replies

@Insane Philosopher,

There are some (perhaps more commonly Islamists than Christians) who think we atheists are well aware of a god's obvious existence, but are pretending otherwise - I think that's the general definition of apostasy.
(Great to have you here IP)

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

The point is only "good" if we ignore the "Satan" argument. Wink

0 Replies

@Insane Philosopher,

Insane Philosopher wrote:

However, if God exists, the Christian can come up with no reasonable idea of why someone would deny this.

Because we've been seduced by the Darwinian, Marxist, and Freudian agenda of materialism and moral relativism. We're falling for this agenda because we're selfish, so we want to serve our profane desires rather than the devine, so we want ideologies that rationalize it.

That's an explanation, and I suppose it sounds rational enough to devoted, intellectually incurious believers.

1 Reply

@Insane Philosopher,

It's another form of Pascal's Wager.

Quote:

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

However, if God exists, the Christian can come up with no reasonable idea of why someone would deny this.

.

ITs a nice circularity there. MAybe others will discuss it like it actually makes sense, I wont

0 Replies

Today I woke up to a beautiful sunrise. I didn't have to thank anyone for it.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I always thank Beers law and Snells law . Also the weather forcaster guy for giving just the right amount of water vapor.

0 Replies

Our new Prime Minister is an "out" atheist. Cool !

0 Replies

I haven't read this yet. My sister found it and I don't have time to check it out right now. So I will use this thread as a repository. Feel free to discuss....

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/29/my-take-why-christians-are-jerks-online/?hpt=C2

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Today I woke up to a beautiful sunrise. I didn't have to thank anyone for it.

But no other animal would think of a sunrise as "beautiful" Ed. How do you think such a capacity evolved when there's nothing in evolution from which to derive it?

Roman emperors sacrificed at the altars of every wierd cult they happened to be visiting. In private they obviously knew they were all baloney. It wasn't done to show disrespect to anybody's religion in public.

We all know that you didn't have to thank anyone for the beautiful sunrise, or your witnessing of that particular one, so there's really no need for you to make a big deal out of it as if it is a feather in your cap and one that those bone-headed idiots who do give thanks for life's pleasures are not allowed to sport.

It's an odd sort of pleasure though. It must be conditioned 100%. It could only derive from the senses and be pleasure proper if the slanting golden rays from the horizon had some mystical power which it is impossible for you to allow. You're stuck with the conditioning.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But no other animal would think of a sunrise as "beautiful" Ed.

How do you know that?

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

It's an assumption upon which those who don't wish to loop the loop proceed.

Once you start thinking that animals can have the concept of beauty the sky's the limit. Silly geese, wackaloons and hoopleheads unite at that point.

2 Replies

@littlek,

I like Joeatheist's comment.Paraphrasing:
"We atheists aren't always so polite(online)either.
We don't have God to keep us in line so we can only blame ourselves."

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

There are some (perhaps more commonly Islamists than Christians) who think we atheists are well aware of a god's obvious existence, but are pretending otherwise - I think that's the general definition of apostasy.
(Great to have you here IP)

A possible explanation for this among many religious groups is rooted in dualism. A soul created created by a God is assumed to have a direct link to God and the spiritual plane. The general assumption for a believer would be that somewhere deep inside a non-believer knows that a God exists and is denying what the soul knows with his corporeal self.

Not trying to derail a thread, just found reading this thread interesting and started analysing the interrelationship of doctrines, dogmas, and non/beliefs for my own amusement.

0 Replies

@littlek,

In my opinion, the article is fine for what it is. But I'm a bit underwhelmed by what it is, because I consider this who's-a-jerk discussion a red herring. Sure, there's a problem with people emulating the late Jerry Falwell online. But it isn't that Falwell was a jerk. It's that he was dead wrong. None of us would care about Jerry Falwell's manners if his factual propositions about god were true.

To see my point, suppose the universe really had a creator. Suppose he really was offended by the notion of gay marriage. Suppose he did bring upon Sodom and Gomorhha what the Bible said he did, and that he did intend to lay the same kind of siege upon America. If all of these things were true, very few of us could reasonably object to Falwell pointing them out. And very few of us would take a stand for gay marriage at the cost of jeopardizing 300 million lives. Gay marriage is a civil right, but civil rights are not a suicide pact.

Therefore, in my opinion, any substantial criticism of literalist Christians has to start by asserting that they are radically, fundamentally wrong. If this offends them, so be it. The truth can be offensive sometimes. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Just as I claim the right to offend Christians as a side effect of rebutting their beliefs, they must have the right to offend me as a side effect of rebutting mine.

Summing up: While manners are always nice to have, they are beside the point when it comes to what's true and what's false. That's why I am sometimes a jerk online. I suspect the same is true for many Christians.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

A very good point Tom. As an agnostic with very little patients with religion, I still see atheists on occassions acting with the same fundamentalist reasoning. We must try and distinguish between absolutes and possibilities. Not believing in a specific religion or religions should not exclude the rational exchange of ideas on beliefs. Religion is built on certainties and atheists appear to want to wright their own certainties. God is not a certainty but that does not exclude all forms of spiritual understanding. I personally believe in the possibility of the soul , what does that make me , not believing in any described god?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

A very good point Tom. As an agnostic with very little patients with religion, I still see atheists on occassions acting with the same fundamentalist reasoning. We must try and distinguish between absolutes and possibilities. Not believing in a specific religion or religions should not exclude the rational exchange of ideas on beliefs. Religion is built on certainties and atheists appear to want to wright their own certainties. God is not a certainty but that does not exclude all forms of spiritual understanding. I personally believe in the possibility of the soul , what does that make me , not believing in any described god?

It makes you a believer in something without any basis in reality.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Reality is in the belief of the individual. Does it make me a theist or an atheist? I dont believe in god or should I say we cant describe god. You dont believe in any description given to you, it does not concur he does not exist. For me at the moment he does not exist.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know