Argument against "lacktheism"

[Audie]

So basically you are saying they are the polar opposite of you?

Actually it has the stink of projection.

 

[dybmh]

It always boils down to strong feelings.
To them, this is truth. And it should be
obvious to us ignorant reprobates who
lack their special spiritual insight.

They consider themselves superior.
We lack spiritual insight...so I'm told.

Haven't you acknowledged your own short comings on more than one occasion? Besides, everyone's different. Everyone has their own talents and flaws. Naturally some are going to struggle with concepts that are outside of the material science. It is a limitation. And its a product of the natural inherent diversity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haven't you acknowledged your own short comings on more than one occasion?

Yes.

Besides, everyone's different. Everyone has their own talents and flaws. Naturally some are going to struggle with concepts that are outside of the material science. It is a limitation.

OK.

 

[dybmh]

It's over your head.

Literally. And under the head, and to the left, and the right, in the front and behind it as well.

 

[We Never Know]

S believes X because R: in other words any belief someone has, there must be a reason for them to have it.

A theist believes in god(s) because of a reason (R). A theistic R may be personal experience, and an atheistic R may be indoctrination. Either way there is R.

If R != gods really exist, there must be *some other R*.

So, when rejecting R = gods really exist, one must propose an alternative R.

Saying "S believes X because R" is a positive position, a claim, no matter what R is, theistic or atheistic.

All positive positions/claims must have reason and evidence for us to seriously consider them.

This means anyone who rejects R = gods really exist must also claim S believes X because R and provide reason and evidence for R. Or to simplify, the very idea of "lacktheism" doesn't really make sense. If you are an atheist you have no escape from believing S believes X because R, same as the theist cannot escape it.

Lacktheism?

If this is aimed at atheist shouldn't it be 'lackism'?

We lack evidence for a god therefore we lack belief in a god -lackism

 

[dybmh]

The objective standard is in the book.

Holy books are evidence of nothing except that they were written.

The topic is the objective standard.

Holy books are evidence of nothing except that they were written. They're not evidence of gods, nor even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote. Nothing in such a book can believed except by faith or following empirical confirmation. We know David existed and was a Hebrew king three millennia ago thanks to empirical confirmation from archeologists. But Adam, Noah, and Abraham remain only characters in stories for lack of empirical confirmation.

Reported. This is off-topic preaching atheism. If you preach AT me, it will be reported.

 

[dybmh]

There is no objective standard at all in the book.

Sure there it. I quoted it.

It's a book of mythology.

So what? There's an objective standard for a cyclopes. You know you've met one by the single eye-ball, the unibrow.

If you disagree, tell me what's objective about it, being you seem so sure there is objectivity here.

I gave you the objecttive description and the example is in the story. A prophet is able to tell you all that is in your heart. In the story, Saul shows up, Samuel tells him the details of his heart: why he was there, what he was worried about. That he didn't need to worry about it. He tells him precisely what is going to happen to him over the next couple of days, and all of it happens it precise detail. "You'll go over there, and meet these people, they're going to to be doing X,Y,Z. You're going to do P,D,Q..." Then all of that happens. When Saul asks for directions to the prophet's home, the villagers tell him, "everything he says comes true." That's an objective standard. It can be tested.

Regarding God, I gave you an objective standard for that as well. It has to do with "God level knowledge". The test for those claiming to be "God in the flesh" or an "avatar of God" or any other "I am God" claims is to show them an obscure language and ask them to translate it. If they cannot, they are NOT God. In addition they would need to know everything in my heart and mind.

These are objective standards. Like I said they are sufficiently high standards to rule out any imposters. It doesn't matter if it's from a myth. It's still a good standard that rules out basically ... everyone. Just as all horses are objectively not pegasus. But there is still an objective standard for a horse with wings.

Point it out then. It's that simple.

See above, and take a look at my original post to you. LINK

 

[McBell]

Actually it has the stink of projection.

That is what I asked him...

 

[PureX]

Literally. And under the head, and to the left, and the right, in the front and behind it as well.

Everything that exists, exists as the fulfillment of a possibility. But what is determining what is possible and what is not? And what is motivating the fulfillment of those possibilities? And why? We ask these questions because the process of logical thought directs us to ask them. They are 'self-evident' questions. And the answer to those question, whatever they are, is the mystery that humans generally refer to as "God". "God" exists because that mystery exists. And because we need/want to know the answers contained within that mystery. "God" is not verifiable or definable because it remains a mystery. The 'meta-mystery', in fact. The mystery that contains within it all others.

 

[Audie]

That is what I asked him...

Change " has" to "..,does have"

 

[Revoltingest]

Change " has" to "..,does have"

It took me a couple seconds to understand that.
(I'm slow.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Everything that exists, exists as the fulfillment of a possibility. But what is determining what is possible and what is not? And what is motivating the fulfillment of those possibilities? And why? We ask these questions because the process of logical thought directs us to ask them. They are 'self-evident' questions. And the answer to those question, whatever they are, is the mystery that humans generally refer to as "God". "God" exists because that mystery exists. And because we need/want to know the answers contained within that mystery. "God" is not verifiable or definable because it remains a mystery. The 'meta-mystery', in fact. The mystery that contains within it all others.

Well, when you put it like that -- you know precisely nothing about this mystery, this "God." That, after all, is the definition of mystery: something that is difficult or impossible (and in this case, impossible) to explain. Therefore, I wish so many people would stop pretending to be explaining it.

 

[wellwisher]

You've got things inverted.
Religious belief requires indoctrination to
know all the mythology that others previously
invented.
Atheism requires nothing. I was born an atheist,
& merely remained so. It's the default state.
I was & am fortunate, eh.

Although, you would not know how to be a good card carrying Atheist, until someone told you all the things not to believe. One could still enjoy the season of Santa Claus even after you find out. However, with Atheism, if you leave any out, your card could be revoked. So you needed to learn the taboo list from X.

An interesting situation for Atheism was the Russian Collusion Coup against Trump. This turned out to be out of touch with reality, and therefore was similar to how Atheists characterize the gods of religion. They are taught that Gods are not real or in touch with reality, based on lack of scientific proof. Many Atheists had faith in what was not real; collusion, because Shady-X told them. This meant Atheist were led into a religion; not verifiable by science. We may need to revoke many licenses to practice Atheism.

If you go back, I was trying to point this out, to protect the Atheist from being led astray, but they unknowingly cheated with a strange religion in atheists clothing, decorated by their faith in con artists. Does it make you feel dirty? You may need to add that to the list and be more careful the next time.

It was interesting that the religious were less vulnerable, than the Atheists to that collision cult religion. The leaders of that cult are still resentful of the immunity, that classic religion offers, to social virus like them. The reasoning power of Atheists was not enough. You need some right brain help that true religions develop.

 

[PureX]

Well, when you put it like that -- you

You mean "we", here ...

know precisely nothing about this mystery, this "God." That, after all, is the definition of mystery: something that is difficult or impossible (and in this case, impossible) to explain. Therefore, I wish so many people would stop pretending to be explaining it.

We know to ask the questions. We know how to recognize the mystery, and to wonder what it holds within it. That's not much, but it's also not "preciseley nothing".

 

[Revoltingest]

Although, you would not know how to be a good card carrying Atheist, until someone told you all the things not to believe.

Although I was born an atheist, I never got
the official card until presented with the
various gods I didn't believe in.

One could still enjoy the season of Santa Claus even after you find out. However, with Atheism, if you leave any out, your card could be revoked. So you needed to learn the taboo list from X.

The Atheist Charter allows for broad spectrum disbelief.
We may be ignorant of many gods we don't believe in.

An interesting situation for Atheism was the Russian Collusion Coup against Trump. This turned out to be out of touch with reality, and therefore was similar to how Atheists characterize the gods of religion. They are taught that Gods are not real or in touch with reality, based on lack of scientific proof. Many Atheists had faith in what was not real; collusion, because Shady-X told them. This meant Atheist were led into a religion; not verifiable by science. We may need to revoke many licenses to practice Atheism.

The Russian Collusion accusation was believed
by many, including Christians here on RF. It was
a partisan political belief, unrelated to religious
orientation.
I never bought into it.
Evidence was utterly lacking.

It was interesting that the religious were less vulnerable, than the Atheists to that collision cult religion.

Have any evidence for that claim?
I won't believe it just because a prophet says so.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although, you would not know how to be a good card carrying Atheist, until someone told you all the things not to believe. One could still enjoy the season of Santa Claus even after you find out. However, with Atheism, if you leave any out, your card could be revoked. So you needed to learn the taboo list from X.

What nonsense. There is no "membership" to atheism -- no card, no dues, no rules, no rituals, no required nonsense to accept no matter how bizarre it might sound. You don't have to be told not to believe in The Great Flaming Salamander not to believe -- in fact, not even having heard of it is as good a reason not to believe as any.

An interesting situation for Atheism was the Russian Collusion Coup against Trump. This turned out to be out of touch with reality, and therefore was similar to how Atheists characterize the gods of religion. They are taught that Gods are not real or in touch with reality, based on lack of scientific proof. Many Atheists had faith in what was not real; collusion, because Shady-X told them. This meant Atheist were led into a religion; not verifiable by science. We may need to revoke many licenses to practice Atheism.

Consipracy theories are not religions, they're nonsense invented to trap the gullible. So, come to think of it, you're right -- that's exactly how we characterize "the gods of religion" -- nonsense invented to trap the gullible.

If you go back, I was trying to point this out, to protect the Atheist from being led astray, but they unknowingly cheated with a strange religion in atheists clothing, decorated by their faith in con artists. Does it make you feel dirty? You may need to add that to the list and be more careful the next time.

It had nothing whatever to do with religion. Therefore, believing it was just a question of looking for evidence of Russian collusion. Those that didn't look, but accepted the word of others, were easily duped. Those who looked, much less so.

It was interesting that the religious were less vulnerable, than the Atheists to that collision cult religion. The leaders of that cult are still resentful of the immunity, that classic religion offers, to social virus like them. The reasoning power of Atheists was not enough. You need some right brain help that true religions develop.

@Revoltingest answered that quite adequately. That's just something you've pulled out of the air, with no evidence whatever to back it up. In fact, I put it to you that since America is awash in religion, that there were, by sheer dint of numbers, more believers who believed the nonsense.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest answered that quite adequately.

 

[Audie]

Although I was born an atheist, I never got
the official card until presented with the
various gods I didn't believe in.

The Atheist Charter allows for broad spectrum disbelief.
We may be ignorant of many gods we don't believe in.

The Russian Collusion accusation was believed
by many, including Christians here on RF. It was
a partisan political belief, unrelated to religious
orientation.
I never bought into it.
Evidence was utterly lacking.

Have any evidence for that claim?
I won't believe it just because a prophet says so.

Evidence? Theos don't got evidence.
They don't need no stinking evidence.

Their whole central concept of reality
( goddidit) is made up. Zero evidence.

So...how is it not completely in keeping
for them to just make up "facts" as it suits them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence? Theos don't got evidence.
They don't need no stinking evidence.

Their whole central concept of reality
( goddidit) is made up. Zero evidence.

So...how is it not completely in keeping
for them to just make up "facts" as it suits them?

It's interesting to converse with believers,
so many of whom will pick & choose from
various things in their scripture, & even
add "facts" of their own making.
If it's all "The Truth", how is it that everyone
disagrees about what's true, yet certainty
abounds, eh.

 

[Audie]

It's interesting to converse with believers,
so many of whom will pick & choose from
various things in their scripture, & even
add "facts" of their own making.
If it's all "The Truth", how is it that everyone
disagrees about what's true, yet certainty
abounds, eh.

Denying that others are True Christians in
every way short of getting banned