Atheists, smarter than religious people

Frank- Although I have repudiated atheism, I think that the concept is situated on a higher intellectual level than theism. Theists, after all, accept a system of belief, some, more than others, "hook, line, and sinker". There needs to be no thought.

In fact, theists apprently disdain thought, embracing "faith" as the higher moral stance.

For some, I would suppose, atheism would simply be the mirror opposite of theism.

But, you must realize, that it does take a certain amount of individual introspection and resolve to remove oneself from the mainstream of society, denying what is believed as absolute truth by the masses, and finding oneself in the position of being "odd man out".[/color][/b]

How does god transcend his creation? I wanna hear how "creative" you are.

How does god transcend his creation? I wanna hear how "creative" you are.

cicerone imposter wrote:

How does god transcend his creation? I wanna hear how "creative" you are.

Me too.

Especially considering that in order to have free will, man must be able to "choose contrary to God's wishes".

But god must always do the moral thing, that being of course "God's wishes".

Thus man can't "choose contrary to God's wishes".

But if man can't "choose contrary to God's wishes" than man does not have free will.

What a joke!

Frank was quite passionate about his beliefs,

I have become an agnostic activist because I truly think the world would be a better place if we all acknowledged our agnosticism. I believe, if you will excuse that seemingly incongruous expression, that everyone is an agnostic. It's just that we agnostics come in two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know. That latter category includes the theists and the atheists (two sides of one coin)--both of whom suppose they know the answers to those unanswerable questions.

Good stuff. Some of Frank's best work.

Hi neologist,
Answer Avoidance Syndrome. . .

snood wrote:

Still - two distinct and separate concepts.

You are quite right, my friend.

Just because God knows what we will do (foreknowledge) doesn't mean He 'caused' us to do it (preordination/predestination).

The distinction would seem to be an obvious one.

The alternative that I have heard oft expressed is the illogical position that some here have adopted:

'If God is omnipotent, then Man cannot possibly have free will (i.e. an all powerful God couldn't give Man a free will).'

Clearly that position is self contradictory.

ci...I already gave a long response to Bill's silliness.

In any case, I am tired of this nonsense.

Atheists are no more able to see through their own bullshyt than theists are...and watching people I consider intelligent continue to act stupidly in rationalization of the garbage...is more than I want to deal with at this stage of my life.

It's been fun...over 10 years of interaction with some of you...and by bailing out now, I will still have fond memories of you all.

But all things come to an end...and this is it for me in this forum.

I will never ever post in A2K again after this post...and after a personal message to Phoenix...I intend to erase the site from my computer.

I hope some of the things I've said come to bear fruit in the future...and as I have said many time, I hope the realizations do not come when you are repairing a roof...or defusing a bomb...because if it comes, it will be a muthaf****r.

I am looking forward to seeing the A2K folks coming to New York this summer...and will stay in touch with Kicky, Joe, Bernie and Lola.

Live a good life folks.

f.

real life wrote:

snood wrote:

Still - two distinct and separate concepts.

You are quite right, my friend.

Just because God knows what we will do (foreknowledge) doesn't mean He 'caused' us to do it (preordination/predestination).

The distinction would seem to be an obvious one.

The alternative that I have heard oft expressed is the illogical position that some here have adopted:

'If God is omnipotent, then Man cannot possibly have free will (i.e. an all powerful God couldn't give Man a free will).'

Clearly that position is self contradictory.

I still take issue with the idea that God must know the future by necessity or compulsionl.

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?

If God is omnipotent, he can do what he durn well pleases. And, if he pleases to screen from himself the 'inevitable' moral outcome of any or all of his intelligent creation, then he can durn well do so.

Why not believe the just-as-absurd but much simpler notion that if your god is perfect, and he can do anything and everything, he would not need to screen himself, because he could know and not know both at the same time?