Atheism - I don't understand it

[Scuba Pete]

All you seem to be doing is being incredibly snarky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Ah, how is humor seen as being snarky? Actually, condescension plays a large role in someone being snarky. I don't think I can be accused of that at this point.

 

[waitasec]

Wow! Where did this schoolyard worn cry of defiance come from? I completely disagree with your assessment. If you can somehow twist that to me calling you a liar, well... what's further discussion going to provide?

what did you mean you doubted i was ever on your side of the fence?
i was brought up in a christian home, studied for the ministry and led in worship at my church...yes i was on your side of the fence in terms of being a theist, isn't that what we are talking about?

No, I actually contend that it is unique and does not reflect where I am now.

no you said you doubted what i was saying was true.

Not a Monty Python fan I take it.

oh i lerv monty python...
you are just ducking now.
at least be honest...where did i say "better" because you did say i wanted to trivialize...didn't you?

Make up your mind. You were just offended in the last paragraph.

i'm not offended i just want to know why you would doubt me and why you accuse me of trivializing anything ...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

[youtube]G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]
You keep using that word. - YouTube

Ah, how is humor seen as being snarky? Actually, condescension plays a large role in someone being snarky. I don't think I can be accused of that at this point.

Actually, you can:

You certainly misunderstand my concept of Love.

Make up your mind. You were just offended in the last paragraph. Do I have to keep posting humor alerts for everyone to read???

Wow! Where did this schoolyard worn cry of defiance come from?

Condescension: The atheist's tool of choice! Never discuss when you can demean instead! Well played sir!

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's impossible to "selflessly" commit an act, unless of course it is accidental or unintended.

On this we disagree. Love is changing diapers. You put up with a lot of crap for someone else's benefit. So far, the only people who have disagreed with this analogy have been childless.

 

[waitasec]

Because it is.

no it's not. do you really not understand how a non theist can see these characters as fictional characters....?

So is this:

They might have well said "Your mother wears army boots!". It's all too common among theists and atheists alike to demean those who do not believe like they do.

what?????

I'm not sure how to respond to a theist who compares God's ontological status to the events in the dreams of a fictional character. Why bother making a case for atheism when theists are doing it so well?

Condescension: The atheist's tool of choice! Never discuss when you can demean instead! Well played sir!

the "profound" statement was another post entirely...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2983395-post253.html

 

[Gjallarhorn]

On this we disagree. Love is changing diapers. You put up with a lot of crap for someone else's benefit. So far, the only people who have disagreed with this analogy have been childless.

You only put up with it because you get something out of it, therefore it is not "selfless".

 

[Scuba Pete]

what did you mean you doubted i was ever on your side of the fence?

Most mainstream Christians lash out against my belief that all you need is love. I am fairly certain you never had my core beliefs. Nor would I contend that my atheism is similar to what you believe now.

oh i lerv monty python...

It was a reference from the Life of Brian (?) where the guy says "She turned me into a newt but I got better". If you don't see the similarities in that kind of argument and the humor therein, then I don't know how to convince you otherwise.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You only put up with it because you get something out of it, therefore it is not "selfless".

Do you have children? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do you have children? Enquiring minds want to know!

No I don't. Does that defeat my point? It shouldn't.

 

[waitasec]

Most mainstream Christians lash out against my belief that all you need is love. I am fairly certain you never had my core beliefs. Nor would I contend that my atheism is similar to what you believe now.

you are moving goal posts here...we were talking about how one hears the "spirit". i equated it as my conscience...you took that as me saying what i thought about how i saw it was "better" than yours when i said it's just semantics...right? besides how i think about it is better FOR ME. and i fully accept you equating it as the spirit...did i respond as if i were offended by your way...i was only explaining how i see it. that is it.

It was a reference from the Life of Brian (?) where the guy says "She turned me into a newt but I got better". If you don't see the similarities in that kind of argument and the humor therein, then I don't know how to convince you otherwise.

i guess your not a woody allen fan...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You certainly misunderstand my concept of Love. You can call yourself anything you want, but your actions show you for what you really are. People who love selflessly have listened to the Spirit whether they acknowledge God or not. It's my opinion that God could care less if we acknowledge him in any other way. When we render mercy with abandon and commit random acts of kindness we show we have God within us. The rest is just... semantics.

Baloney. You don't get to co-opt my worldview to claim me for your religion, and I think you show great disrespect for me by trying.

 

[McBell]

Its common for an atheist to say there is no evidence of god, but that isn't exactly accurate.

Actually, as written, "there is no evidence for god", is just plain flat out wrong.

The problem here is that what they mean when they say that is "There is no objective empirical evidence for god"

The word evidence has absolutely nothing in its definition about the basis for belief being true or real or logical or reasonable....

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
evidence
n
1: your basis for belief or disbelief​

 

[waitasec]

Actually, as written, "there is no evidence for god", is just plain flat out wrong.

The problem here is that what they mean when they say that is "There is no objective empirical evidence for god"

The word evidence has absolutely nothing in its definition about the basis for belief being true or real or logical or reasonable....

"WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
evidence
n
1: your basis for belief or disbelief​

well really, thats like adding 7 more syllables...!!! i'm too lazy for that.

sort of like saying zero for one
instead of saying O for one

 

[McBell]

well really, thats like adding 7 more syllables...!!! i'm too lazy for that.

sort of like saying zero for one
instead of saying O for one

Then do not be surprised when you are shown to be flat out wrong simply because you are to lazy to specify what you mean....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Condescension: The atheist's tool of choice!

Only when dealing with the Argument from Harry Potter.

 

[waitasec]

Then do not be surprised when you are shown to be flat out wrong simply because you are to lazy to specify what you mean....

me wrong....????
never.

 

[Alceste]

You just brought an awesome point. I write music, and I trained myself to hear sounds in my head, if I concentrate hard enough in a quiet environment or very noisy one like in a metro train. If I listen to a song many many times a week, sometimes I can literally play that song in my head, hearing all the instruments including the singer, almost as good as when using the speakers.

I'm wondering now, if a person goes to church every week, and constantly reads the bible or equivalent, that same kind of ability would mess up his/her head, which would have him/her believe to being able to converse with God.

I have that same skill. I try to teach it to my music students too.

In the weirdest dream I ever had, I was lightly dozing while babysitting (the kid was having a nap too), and the stereo started blaring Love Cats. It woke me up, and the sound stopped. Then I closed my eyes and it picked up exactly where it left off. I opened my eyes again and it stopped. At this point I realized the stereo wasn't really on, it was just in my head, so I closed and opened my eyes a few times, fascinated by the perfection of the "playback" in my head. Every note was perfect. This wasn't a song I'd ever spent any time trying to learn either. It was completely random.

Our brains are bizarre.

 

[Alceste]

Condescension: The atheist's tool of choice! Never discuss when you can demean instead! Well played sir!

Of course, implying that your religion has exclusive domain on love, compassion, morality and all manner of general warm fuzzy sentiments is not at all condescending.

 

[Sir Doom]

While I agree with what you're saying, I still think that there is a level at which certain claims should have their bars set above or below others, and that religion is the result of people who set their bars for particularly extraordinary claims at a level that is identifiably too low.

Only too low for you. Any attempt by those that believe in the fire breathing dragon to 'win you over' as it were, will likely fall on their face, yes? This is because they can't lower your bar. They see yours as too high. But not so with everyone. Some will accept it. Clearly, some have! Hence a congregation.

Its fine to dismiss an extraordinary claim if that's what you perceive, but do it like this, "Your special feeling about the fire breathing dragon isn't good enough for me to believe you. What else have you got?" Then the best they can do is bluster about how your bar is too high (in different words of course).
We already know how that goes.

Its important to remember it goes both ways. You can't raise their bar, they can't lower yours. You can't move any bars except your own. No one is going to raise up their bar to your level just because you think they should.

One final note. It is important to discuss all of the things we discuss here on the forum. I definitely don't want to devalue what we all do here. There are people who have no idea where to put their bar. Or maybe they found out their bar has been in the 'wrong' place for a long time. These are the people that need to know where our bars are and why we put them where they are. Then they can make their own choice (because that's always what happens anyway).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But belief in God isn't the only belief that people hold. When we examine the other beliefs that a person accepts and rejects, we can get a picture of where the "bar" is for them normally. We can then see if they apply that same standard to religious beliefs. If they don't (whether it's higher or lower) without justification, then they're being inconsistent.

Also, I think we can argue that the bar must be above a certain point, because if it's set too low, then it would allow acceptance of mutually exclusive ideas, which creates a logically untenable situation. If your bar is set so low to allow "X is true" that it also allows "X is false", then it's demonstrably too low, IMO.