Argument against "lacktheism"

[Alien826]

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

There's an element of truth here, in that if there was no belief in god/s then there would be no word "atheist' nor anything for it to refer to.

The implication that there is some kind of "recruitment" going on where people are taught atheism has less (not no) truth to it. A better description might be that we are told what to believe by theists and decide not to believe it.

 

[Alien826]

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

As a matter of interest, have you reported all the blatant examples of preaching by religious folks here? I won't give direct examples as I would have to quote names, but it shouldn't be too hard to list a few.

For the record, I don't have anything against preaching in general. Anyone who states his religious belief without qualifying it with "in my opinion" or similar can be accused of it, and that's OK. I can live with it.

 

[dybmh]

As a matter of interest, have you reported all the blatant examples of preaching by religious folks here? I won't give direct examples as I would have to quote names, but it shouldn't be too hard to list a few.

The simple answer is no. I have not reported ALL the blatant examples of preaching. This particular poster has a pattern of preaching. I have asked them not to reply to me in general. I have asked them not to reply to me in partcular unless they are reading and replying to what I have written. They seem to have a real problem with this simple idea.

In this case, I am talking about an objective standard, they are taking the opportunity to preach about it being mythology and there is no evidence of god contained in it.

As a general rule if someone is preaching AT me, then I will consider reporting them. And I think you should do the same.

For the record, I don't have anything against preaching in general. Anyone who states his religious belief without qualifying it with "in my opinion" or similar can be accused of it, and that's OK. I can live with it.

I draw the line at ignoring what is written and shifting the topic like a politician. That, to me, is preaching. If someone wants to discuss, debate, or argue with me, all I ask is that they read what I wrote and reply to what I wrote.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I wrote, "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."

Instead of flying off the handle at literally no provocation at all and calling making a reasoned argument "preaching atheism," how about addressing the claims in that comment? And while you're at it, you might explain what you found so objectionable there and why you chose to respond in anger. What pushed your button this time - suggesting that scripture isn't evidence that its contents are accurate, or questioning the historicity of biblical characters?

Suggestion: Stop reading my posts. Put me on ignore. I intend to continue responding to some of your posts in same manner as I have here, which seems to trigger you. I don't need you to read them or respond to them. They're not really for you anyway. It's been impossible to have a discussion with you without you taking comments like mine above personally and getting angry, so I don't try any more.

The reasoning power of Atheists was not enough. You need some right brain help that true religions develop.

Thanks for the tip, but as Larry the Cable Guy said to his girlfriend when she greeted him at the door wearing crotchless unmentionables and asked him if he wanted "some of this," "Heck no. I seen what it done to your britches."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You mean "we", here ...

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".

But alas, the one thing that some of "us" cannot do is tolerate the answer "we dont know yet." And because we can't do that, we must invent something to fill that gap.

But inventing a stop-gap isn't anything like actually finding an answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

The topic is the objective standard.



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

This is a thread posted in opposition to atheism.
It's in the Religious Debates section.
There will be much posting about atheism & its
cromlulence, particularly relative to theistic faiths.
Differences of opinion that aren't intended
to preach or convert are allowed.
(As I understand the rules.)

And as a matter of propriety, tis best to
not threaten reporting for a potential violation.
Just report actual violations.

 

[dybmh]

wrote, "Holy books are evidence of nothing except that they were written

Which is off topic. The topic is the objective standard not evidence.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.

Instead of flying off the handle at literally no provocation at all and calling making a reasoned argument "preaching atheism," how about addressing the claims in that comment?

It is off topic. The topic is the objective standard not evidence.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.

Suggestion: Stop reading my posts. Put me on ignore. I intend to continue responding to some of your posts in same manner as I have here,

That is cowardly. If you stay on topic and stop preaching, there will not be a problem.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.

Otherwise, if you would like to discuss, debate, or argue with me, please read my posts and reply to what I wrote.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Do you believe in God? If so, how do you know he can pass your test?

 

[MikeF]

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

I have gone through your OP trying to get a handle on what you are trying to convey and I met with a stumbling block with the quoted sentence above. You say that when one rejects someone's reasons for a particular belief, the rejector must provide alternate reason, meaning an alternate reason to why the belief-holder holds the belief? Isn't that immaterial? All one has to show is that whatever reasons are provided by the believer, that set of reasons does not support the belief. For example, if someone were to say that they believed they can jump from the top of a tall building and soar using updrafts and eventually land safely with no material aid other than their mental will, is it really necessary to provide a reason as to why that person holds such a belief, or is it sufficient to provide the reasons as to why their belief is unwarranted? I suggest it is the latter case.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The

The simple answer is no. I have not reported ALL the blatant examples of preaching. This particular poster has a pattern of preaching. I have asked them not to reply to me in general. I have asked them not to reply to me in partcular unless they are reading and replying to what I have written. They seem to have a real problem with this simple idea.

In this case, I am talking about an objective standard, they are taking the opportunity to preach about it being mythology and there is no evidence of god contained in it.

As a general rule if someone is preaching AT me, then I will consider reporting them. And I think you should do the same.



I draw the line at ignoring what is written and shifting the topic like a politician. That, to me, is preaching. If someone wants to discuss, debate, or argue with me, all I ask is that they read what I wrote and reply to what I wrote.

The only place I can find the term "objective standard" in practical use is in Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. And what it means is that it stands opposed to the notion that the standards of knowledge and value are not factual but subjective (feeling-based) or other-worldly (faith-based). I think, given that, that @It Aint Necessarily So was responding quite on topic.

 

[MikeF]

In addition they would need to know everything in my heart and mind.

Has someone met this standard for you?

 

[Alien826]

I have gone through your OP trying to get a handle on what you are trying to convey and I met with a stumbling block with the quoted sentence above. You say that when one rejects someone's reasons for a particular belief, the rejector must provide alternate reason, meaning an alternate reason to why the belief-holder holds the belief? Isn't that immaterial? All one has to show is that whatever reasons are provided by the believer, that set of reasons does not support the belief. For example, if someone were to say that they believed they can jump from the top of a tall building and soar using updrafts and eventually land safely with no material aid other than their mental will, is it really necessary to provide a reason as to why that person holds such a belief, or is it sufficient to provide the reasons as to why their belief is unwarranted? I suggest it is the latter case.

I got caught on that one too. @1137 clarified it by saying that he meant providing reasons for rejecting the belief. It's somewhere back there ...

 

[MikeF]

I got caught on that one too. @1137 clarified it by saying that he meant providing reasons for rejecting the belief. It's somewhere back there ...

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I suppose that's what happens when one jumps in late.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if you would like to discuss, debate, or argue with me

My interest is in discussing ideas, not dealing with emotional incontinence. Look at your reaction to my post. You could have ignored it or answered it, but you went postal instead - again. Why would I want to discuss ideas with somebody like that?

As I explained, you should understand all of my responses to your posting as being written for the benefit of people interested in considering such ideas, which is why I recommended that you put me on ignore, since my opinions seem to trigger you rather than stimulate debate. If we were communicating directly without an audience, like in an email, I wouldn't read your words or respond to them. If you were the only one reading this reply, I'd have no reason to write it.

Why? Because you've brought nothing to the table but grievances and affective lability.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.

Report me? Is this where you demand to speak to my supervisor?

 

[dybmh]

My interest is in discussing ideas,

The topic is an objective standard for prophecy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sure there it. I quoted it.



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



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.



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

You should note what objectivity is in its proper context.

It's not imagination borne fantastical mythological beings touted as being real , but one can certainly say they are objectively fake, like gods and the like found in those books of mythology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you seem to be obsessed with demanding what you cannot have

What he's telling you is that you have no concept of what it is you say exists when you refer to gods. He's an igtheist: "Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition."

You still don't understand the skeptic. None of us expect any believer to produce anything meaningful in support of their beliefs - just reasons why they can't other than that they might hold a false belief.

When one believes in a fictional character, he can't produce evidence in support of his belief, and in the case of gods, can't give a description like he could if he believed in Santa, who is fat, jolly, red-cheeked, white-haired, bearded, wears red with white trim with a black belt, lives with elves, reindeer and Mrs. Claus at the north Pole, where he has a workshop for making toys and a sleigh.

And if we encountered such a person, we would know that it was Santa or an imitator. No theist can do that well describing his god that he says he knows and maybe even has a personal relationship with. The skeptic doesn't believe him for a variety of reasons, and this would be one of them.

You should always translate such "requests" for evidence (or in this case, a clear description) into what they actually mean. "Where's your evidence" when it comes to gods means "You have no evidence" which I consider the proper way to say that to make it clear that the skeptic knows that the theist has no empirical support for his god belief and that he isn't expecting any.

when they are asked to explain (logically defend) why they believe these entities do not exist, they lie and claim that they don't believe that these entities don't exist

This again - you putting words in the skeptics' mouths and calling them liars when they correct you?

 

[PureX]

But alas, the one thing that some of "us" cannot do is tolerate the answer "we dont know yet." And because we can't do that, we must invent something to fill that gap.

But inventing a stop-gap isn't anything like actually finding an answer.

You’re a bit confused, here. There is no “yet” except for those in the scientism cult that think science is just about to find the answers, even though science is not capable of it.

Also, it’s not that anyone “must” invent solutions for this great mystery. It’s that the mystery invites speculation. And hope. And there is so much possibility in that, that people want to explore it. And why shouldn’t they?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You’re a bit confused, here. There is no “yet” except for those in the scientism cult that think science is just about to find the answers, even though science is not capable of it.

Also, it’s not that anyone “must” invent solutions for this great mystery. It’s that the mystery invites speculation. And hope. And there is so much possibility in that, that people want to explore it. And why shouldn’t they?

It is a mistake to suppose that hope is impossible without idle speculation on what cannot be understood (by your own claim that it is a "mystery").

But let's talk about what else such speculation can lead to: like 9/11, or the hatred of gay people that led to things like Westboro Baptist Church, or the murder of Matthew Shepard.

Here's an interesting headline from the New York Tribune, May 20, 1918: "Georgia Mob Lynches Negor and His Wife." The mob grew to about 300 men, who were looking for black victims wherever they could find them, and killed at least 13 blacks, one of them a farmworker named Hayes Turner. Next day, his wife, Mary, 8 months pregnaqnt, made what a Georgia newspaper call "unwise remarks...about the execution of her husban." The mob strung her up to a tree by her ankles, doused her with gasoline, adn set her on fire. As she screamed in pain, a member of the mob knifed open her belly, and when her unborn child fell to the ground and gave a cry, men stomped it to death.

Now, this being Georgia in 1918, what do you bet that nearly every one of those men was in church the following Sunday, basking in the surety that they were loved by the Lord?

 

[Audie]

Which is off topic. The topic is the objective standard not evidence.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.



It is off topic. The topic is the objective standard not evidence.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.



That is cowardly. If you stay on topic and stop preaching, there will not be a problem.

If you preach AT me, with off-topic atheist preaching, I will report it.

Otherwise, if you would like to discuss, debate, or argue with me, please read my posts and reply to what I wrote.

How about you give it a rest