• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism - I don't understand it

Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Gjallarhorn said:
No I don't. Does that defeat my point? It shouldn't.
Click to expand...
But it does. The best parents also have no children. They THINK they know how to raise kids, but they have no experience to base that opinion on. It's nothing but BLIND faith. I'm glad that I predicted this result before you gave your answer. :D :D :D

You can't conceive of selfless love simply because you've never had it. It's just that simple.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
9-10ths_Penguin said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, you want me to change my understanding of love to accommodate your feelings? How petty. I don't require that of you and I refuse to assign beliefs to you that you don't ascribe yourself.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Alceste said:
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.
Click to expand...
I never implied that. That's a conclusion you drew on your own. Mine is pretty simple: God is love and love is God. The more you love the more you are like God. I don't think it matters what you call yourself.
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Scuba Pete said:
But it does. The best parents also have no children. They THINK they know how to raise kids, but they have no experience to base that opinion on. It's nothing but BLIND faith. I'm glad that I predicted this result before you gave your answer. :D :D :D

You can't conceive of selfless love simply because you've never had it. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...
Selfless love is not the same as selfless action, unless we are discussing selfless acts of love, which again must be accidental, unintended, or as I forgot to add earlier, involuntary.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Scuba Pete said:
So, you want me to change my understanding of love to accommodate your feelings? How petty. I don't require that of you and I refuse to assign beliefs to you that you don't ascribe yourself.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way: I arrived at atheism through skepticism... i.e. the application of reason. If I was to assert that - even if you don't acknowledge it - to the extent that you are rational, you're an atheist, would you be insulted?

Edit: And I'm not telling you to change your understanding of anything. I merely reserve the right, if you express a chauvinistic, insulting position, to tell you to go **** up a rope.
 
Last edited:
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Let me put it this way: I arrived at atheism through skepticism... i.e. the application of reason. If I was to assert that - even if you don't acknowledge it - to the extent that you are rational, you're an atheist, would you be insulted?
Click to expand...
Nope, I wouldn't feel insulted. I don't agree with your conclusion but it's YOUR conclusion.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Gjallarhorn said:
Selfless love is not the same as selfless action, unless we are discussing selfless acts of love, which again must be accidental, unintended, or as I forgot to add earlier, involuntary.
Click to expand...
This brought to you by someone without children.

Love is by definition a decision to act. Ergo, it can't be "involuntary". You're stuck on the emotional love based on attraction. That's not selfless. It can turn into that, but it doesn't start out that way.

You won't figure out selfless love until you're put in that position. You'll love it when you get there, but right now it can't make sense to you.
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Scuba Pete said:
I never implied that. That's a conclusion you drew on your own. Mine is pretty simple: God is love and love is God. The more you love the more you are like God. I don't think it matters what you call yourself.
Click to expand...

I've got no issue with this opinion. I think it's a lovely sentiment. :) Your tone toward "atheists" in this thread, which seems to me to lump them together as a group that seems to you to be deficient in love and compassion, was what I was referring to. Might it be a side effect of believing God is love that leads you to assume that to be without God is to be without love?
 
Gjallarhorn

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Scuba Pete said:
This brought to you by someone without children.

Love is by definition a decision to act. Ergo, it can't be "involuntary". You're stuck on the emotional love based on attraction. That's not selfless. It can turn into that, but it doesn't start out that way.

You won't figure out selfless love until you're put in that position. You'll love it when you get there, but right now it can't make sense to you.
Click to expand...
Contradictions don't go away with time.
 
Scuba Pete

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
PolyHedral said:
You're not one of those people who think all opinions are equally valid, are you?
Click to expand...
If by valid, you mean protected, then mostly yes. If by valid you mean I believe it to be true, then no. If by valid you mean I should feel superior for mine over yours, then definitely NO!

I hope that helps.
 
Sir Doom

Sir Doom

Cooler than most of you
9-10ths_Penguin said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is true, they are being inconsistent. But I did mention this in the first post. We decide where the bar is for each belief on its own. We don't require the same evidence for everything, even when it seems like we are. I suppose I can only speak for myself on this note, but I'll try to use an example from my perspective to illustrate this.

I believe there was once a man named Alexander the Great. When I first learned of this man, I had only the word of my history teacher to go on. Yet I believed it all the same. Since that time I have seen a lot of evidence that fits this same criteria. Really, its all the same though. Historians tell me he existed. Historians I've never met. Historians that could not have met Alexander. Me belief is built on a gigantic house of cards that hinges on historians being accurate and truthful throughout the very history I'm supposed to believe on their word in the first place. But this is sufficient for me. I believe also that there is a lot more evidence for Alexander's existence than the word of historians. But I've never seen it or sought it out. And I likely never will, since I don't need it. I simply take their word for it. They are the ones who know about these things, after all.

But there are a lot of things about Alexander that I don't believe. Even when these things are told to me by those same historians. Things like his personality and motivation. These all seem like guessing to me. Extrapolation at best. So, I don't buy it. I'm not convinced. Even by the same exact source that tells me he exists in the first place. Different bar. Each belief we hold is based on a completely separate set of criteria.

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.
Click to expand...

I think you can argue that your bar must be above a certain point. You can even argue that someone else's bar had better be at a certain point if they expect to convince you of anything. But you can't argue that their bar is too low because it isn't up to you where their bar is. If someone professes that their belief is logical, they are saying they require logic to support their belief. If you demonstrate a lack of logic they will change their belief based on their requirement for logic. This is much different than moving their bar. They are telling you where it is, and you are showing they haven't reached it.

Now, I should say something about honesty at this point. This really throws the monkey into the wrench. Its really hard to discern when someone is being dishonest about where their respective bar is at or whether its been reached. Especially on a forum. Especially when talking about religion. People lie. To themselves more than anything. The only thing sane people can do is be honest and say what they believe and why. Nothing else matters anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top