Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[waitasec]

What relevance is color to a man who cannot see?

it is not a disbelief (a refusal to believe)...it has never been experienced, understood or known.

I agree completely. But I am not basing my argument that the atheist belief involves a God, just merely a belief, an attachment to what others believe.
I seemed to have struggle getting that across. Who knows if it even did.[/COLOR]

:sad:
i know what you mean...



for what it's worth...i enjoyed the journey

 

[Orias]

it is not a disbelief (a refusal to believe)...it has never been experienced, understood or known.

Of course. Double meanings potentially apply

:sad:
i know what you mean...



for what it's worth...i enjoyed the journey

Tis mere amusement :beach:

 

[Alceste]

Looks like you share a common ground with the Opposition.




As an atheist, you don't believe anything. That's exactly my point.



You are attached as long as you give meaning to it. And I never refused to embrace anything, had you noticed I agreed with everything everyone provided with me as to what atheism was, it just seems to lag a little bit in the point that, belief is viewed as something that one perceives as true, even if it has to embrace the idea that, disbelieve or lack of belief is what atheism is. Atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural or certain "ideas" of God, it's not merely just a lack of belief.

You give meaning, belief to what atheism is, therefore it is believed to be.

Actually, it is the dictionary that gives meaning to the word "atheism". If I looked it up tomorrow and the meaning had changed, I would stop using it to describe my opinion. Therefore I am not attached. I use it in conversations about gods because, when used precisely as the dictionary instructs, it is an accurate description. It saves me the trouble of typing out "I lack belief in a deity or deities".

I've already conceded that I believe I lack belief in deities, if that is your point. I'll go you one step further and concede I believe the dictionary is qualified to pronounce upon the meaning of the word "atheist". But I have no beliefs pertaining to the existence or non-existence, somewhere in the universe, of beings humans could perceive as gods, and I am not nihilistic.

 

[outhouse]

being a philistine troll

nice

Do not taunt me

then dont keep confusing lack of belief in a myth. It does not equal disbelief as it has been pointed out to you.

 

[Thief]

Science and math are myths.

Well constructed and seemingly self supportive.....
but empty of spirit and true intelligence.

 

[Magic Man]

This has nothing to do with fear.

Yes, it does. You said the consequence of not believing in God is that God will poof you out of existence. That's an attempt to scare someone into believing.

How you deal with others is the point.

Can you make this make sense?

Denial has no consequence?

Of course it does.

Yes, it does. In this case, it has the consequence of allowing me to live a normal life without worrying about religious nonsense.

Have you decided there is no afterlife?
If not...are you here to pat your self on the back ....with denial?
And that works..... how?

If you DO have some notion about an afterlife.....
Then the consequence for all you say.... is pending.

Again with the scare tactics. Yes, there is no afterlife. But I'm also not going to start believing in God just in the off chance there is an afterlife where this god of yours punishes me for not believing he exists. That's because I can see the massive folly in Pascal's Wager.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Science and math are myths.

Well constructed and seemingly self supportive.....
but empty of spirit and true intelligence.

Please explain....:sad:

 

[Magic Man]

As an atheist, you don't believe anything. That's exactly my point.

Um...no, that hasn't been your point. If it was, you wouldn't have said many of the things you have on this thread and others. This is our point that we're trying to get through to you. Please accept it, and correct your other beliefs to reflect it.

 

[Vansdad]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

Maybe this has already been said but it's along post so forgive me. But no one can disprove God Himself, so these people go after things like religion or man because that is all they have. And they distort who God is for many of us in order to mock Him. If they went to disprove God they would have nothing to write. It's the easy way out because there is no proof either way.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe this has already been said but it's along post so forgive me. But no one can disprove God Himself, so these people go after things like religion or man because that is all they have. And they distort who God is for many of us in order to mock Him. If they went to disprove God they would have nothing to write. It's the easy way out because there is no proof either way.

We can disprove many things that are said about God. We don't "go after other things because we can't disprove God". We argue against religious claims because they are what describes God. We also don't distort God. We argue against the claims made by those who believe in God.

The simple fact is there is no evidence for God, so there is no rational reason to believe he exists.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe this has already been said but it's along post so forgive me. But no one can disprove God Himself

We don't posit the existence of gods. If you make the claim that a god exist then the burden of producing evidence of your claim is solely on you.

they distort who God is for many of us in order to mock Him.

How could we considering we lack belief in the existence of gods? If I said your god is vengeful, jealous, hateful, genocidal, misogynistic and condones infanticide I would be correct in saying so. Why?.....because your own bible says so.

If they went to disprove God they would have nothing to write. It's the easy way out because there is no proof either way.

I'm thoroughly convinced on a daily basis gods don't exit. I'm thoroughly convinced there are plenty out there that believe gods do exist but I could care less to try and "prove" their gods don't exist.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Maybe this has already been said but it's along post so forgive me. But no one can disprove God Himself, so these people go after things like religion or man because that is all they have. And they distort who God is for many of us in order to mock Him. If they went to disprove God they would have nothing to write. It's the easy way out because there is no proof either way.

Honestly, I don't really care about disproving God. Sure, I am a skeptic. But I'm a hopeful skeptic, if there is such a thing.

I would actually like God to be a reality. I would like for there to be some divine meaning, maybe even some divine justice, in this universe. I would like for guys like Hitler and Moammar Gadhafi and Charlie Sheen to be forced one day to explain their behavior. Well, truthfully, I hope God takes it easy on Charlie Sheen--he's just having a little fun.

But the point is that you're so perfectly wrong in your analysis it is startling. Frankly, I couldn't imagine someone being so wrong unless they were diverted by their own slanted motivations. Something other than a fair and reasoned evaluation of matters must have led you to these flawed conclusions.

Skeptics don't go after "things like man and religion because that is all they have", but because it is man and religion who unduly press their weight upon us. It is man and religion who muddy the water of truth, who confuse good people hungry for gods to be real. It is man and religion that have their own agendas, plans and schemes that are certainly not God's. It is man and religion that exploit God for purposes of realizing their own self-serving ends.

Also, it is not the skeptic who "distorts" God's image for the purpose of mockery and contempt. It is religions themselves who distort God. There are thousands of versions of God floating around out there, each one claiming to be more real than the others. And you believe it is the skeptic, the person who wants to rationally explore the universe rather than taking a blind leap of faith, that distorts God? That is, in a word, absurd. Skeptics need not distort God when the varying religions, sects, denominations and individual churches themselves refuse to agree on the true face of God, His true purpose and His true Writ and Rules.

I'm trying to be honest with you, so I hope you take no offense at what I've written. I usually spend my time making my lame jokes and irreverantly poking fun at what I believe to be flawed God models and religious concepts. As I said, I see them as harmful and self-serving, mostly, rather than as benign and pure. And I appreciate honest and fair exchanges. I honestly believe what I've written. I honestly don't see how you can say the same thing. But if you honestly feel it is the skeptic that has done more to distort God than the varying religions themselves, I will listen with sincere and open interest. I just don't see how you could possibly, honestly believe that to be true.

 

[Orias]

nice



then dont keep confusing lack of belief in a myth. It does not equal disbelief as it has been pointed out to you.

I wasn't confusing a lack of belief with a myth, merely lifting a veil.

Um...no, that hasn't been your point. If it was, you wouldn't have said many of the things you have on this thread and others. This is our point that we're trying to get through to you. Please accept it, and correct your other beliefs to reflect it.

So now your telling me what my points were?

Why should I listen to anything you say, if you didn't even know what point I was trying to get across the whole time?

 

[outhouse]

merely lifting a veil.

no we understand the implications and wording quite well.

there are different types of atheist with different thoughts on all this.

thoughts are not beliefs nor should they be confused.



I know how god was created by ancient hebrews so I have a clear lack of any type of belief

this is not the same for every person who does not apply god to reality

 

[outhouse]

You want belief to be true because without a god or heaven there can be no opposite

The opposite is what your intrested in which in my eye's is bigger fiction then real religion

 

[Orias]

You want belief to be true because without a god or heaven there can be no opposite

I think if you knew what I believed you would get a little furthur in your cry for truth.

The opposite is what your intrested in which in my eye's is bigger fiction then real religion

Define, the Opposite.

no we understand the implications and wording quite well.

there are different types of atheist with different thoughts on all this.

No one is disagreeing with you.

thoughts are not beliefs nor should they be confused.

Thoughts are not beliefs as long as the thought is not perceived as a truth. Otherwise...it really is.

I know how god was created by ancient hebrews so I have a clear lack of any type of belief

Records of "God" go beyond the ancient hebrews. Any knowledge that you assume as a "truth" or "fact" is a belief.

this is not the same for every person who does not apply god to reality

I don't think it would be very practical to do so

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whatever you make out of it. You have to understand that people make what they want out of beliefs. It doesn't have to be indoctrinated or practiced through ritual. Though I do realize that there are certain, "sects" of atheism practice and study over doctrines.

You're the one that keeps positing that atheism is a belief. If this is the case, then why can't you simply tell me what that belief is?

From my understanding, you are an "explicit" atheist, a "weak" one at that. You believe atheism is a lack of belief.

I don't believe atheism is an absence of belief because I'm an atheist - I believe (or more accurately know) that, because that's what the definition of it is. You don't have to be an atheist to believe its definition, nor does believing its definition make you an atheist. There are plenty of theists who believe the definition of atheism. Are you claiming that this makes them atheists?

Unless you have misinformed me of course.

Let's try this again. You posit that atheism is a belief. To make such a claim, you must be able to state what that belief is. Please tell me what belief I hold that is specific to being an atheist.

 

[outhouse]

Records of "God" go beyond the ancient hebrews.

incorrect

records of man made myths of different deitys go back as far as written knowlegde goes back.

man 200,000 years ago had belief about thunder spirits, rain gods ect ect all beliefs based on what ancient man did not know. The more primitive a man is the more beliefs he will hold.

I don't think it would be very practical to do so

there you go thinking again

Any knowledge that you assume as a "truth" or "fact" is a belief

WRONG again. If I assume it is still not belief because in my mind I dont have belief.

your still missing the boat on personal belief and the lack therof

 

[Orias]

incorrect

records of man made myths of different deitys go back as far as written knowlegde goes back.

So you assume that man had no beliefs before he could write?

man 200,000 years ago had belief about thunder spirits, rain gods ect ect all beliefs based on what ancient man did not know.

Agreeable, but I would also note that these beliefs were based off of what man did know as well.

The more primitive a man is the more beliefs he will hold.

Can you verify that?

It seems man holds quite a lot of beliefs these days.

there you go thinking again

So you think that it would be practical to apply "God" to a reality?

WRONG again. If I assume it is still not belief because in my mind I dont have belief.

your still missing the boat on personal belief and the lack therof

Personal belief is irrelevant to the label of it. In your mind you may not have belief, but that itself is a belief.

Basically hypocritical.

You're the one that keeps positing that atheism is a belief. If this is the case, then why can't you simply tell me what that belief is?

I'll tell you again. It's a merely a belief, period.

I don't believe atheism is an absence of belief because I'm an atheist - I believe (or more accurately know) that, because that's what the definition of it is. You don't have to be an atheist to believe its definition, nor does believing its definition make you an atheist. There are plenty of theists who believe the definition of atheism. Are you claiming that this makes them atheists?

Of course not, I am merely claiming that your foundation that you consider "fact" or "knowledge" is as lose as the mind that conceived it.

Let's try this again. You posit that atheism is a belief. To make such a claim, you must be able to state what that belief is. Please tell me what belief I hold that is specific to being an atheist.

Again, mere belief. It is not specified because the belief of it, is subjected to the personal interpretation of it.

Simply, the point is, anything believed to be true is a belief. You hold the view that you are correct in your vision of atheism, that is a belief. You can claim that there is a "knowledge" behind it, but the truth of the matter is that it wouldn't exist if humans did not.

 

[outhouse]

In your mind you may not have belief, but that itself is a belief

explain this incorrect horse pucky

there you go calling no belief a belief

prove how this statement is correct