Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Erebus]

ROFL at the idea of atheists as "conformists".

Hee hee hee. How jolly.

Carry on.

I admit it's a little difficult for me to get my head around atheists being considered outsiders. Where I live atheism is pretty much the norm. Still, I've seen enough footage of religious nuts to understand some of the frustration of American atheists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Admit it....you just say you're an atheist so you can join the "in crowd" for the social benefits.
We're the most respected 'religion', you know.

Everyone knows us atheists organize the best exclusive buffets.

My favourite at the last atheist barbecue was the aborted baby served in the tears of persecuted Christians on a bed of flaming Bibles. Now, that's good blasphemy!

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Everyone knows us atheists organize the best exclusive buffets.

My favourite at the last atheist barbecue was the aborted baby served in the tears of persecuted Christians on a bed of flaming Bibles. Now, that's good blasphemy!

Oh and the Crucified Christ Crabcakes were delicious! Too bad it came back up three days later though.

 

[Alceste]

I admit it's a little difficult for me to get my head around atheists being considered outsiders. Where I live atheism is pretty much the norm. Still, I've seen enough footage of religious nuts to understand some of the frustration of American atheists.

You may be mixing up non-religious or not practicing with atheism. Where I live, belief is not a normal conversation topic, but just about everybody believes in some kind of god or gods. Lots of pagans, pantheists, deists and liberal Christians. Not too many bible-thumping door knockers (although still enough to annoy). My boss is JW but has never even mentioned it. Somebody else told me.

So even though a casual observer might think atheism is the norm here due to the lack of religious discussion, they'd be very wrong.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I strongly suspect a deep desire of denial is brought on by the mix between a fear of death and the fear of the unknown.

Then when religion offers a belief ...about the afterlife...that may be difficult to deal with...then denial is the only escape.

And that escape appears easy....

There is no God.....if there is...prove it.

Wrong....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've been saying this for some time now.

Most atheists will tend to disagree with you if you try and provoke any sincere inquisition on their behalf. They will just see you as an enemy to their "master plan".

But thus, I do realize that there is a select few out there that will listen and attempt to understand, rather than those that say they understand and push irrelevant points.

It's much like people that think, just because they can understand the propteries of quantum mechanics, they can understand the consistancy of spirituality.

There is ascribed knowledge and achieved knowledge, spirituality seems to be a built in drive capable of being ignorned and disacknowledged and misunderstood as "faith" and illogical in proposition.

If you ask me, most people that consider themselves "atheists" arn't really atheists, just people looking for something to conform to, much like all other people. Of course, this is a generalized statement and does not apply to a lot of people.

But what do I know? I'm just an irrational irreligious theist

It's become quite clear you know very little about Atheist.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Admit it....you just say you're an atheist so you can join the "in crowd" for the social benefits.
We're the most respected 'religion', you know.

I joined because of the healthcase plan.......:yes:

 

[newhope101]

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?

Yeah but I think it is a good thing. It shows something is getting under their skin. To intentionally belittle believers in God, that they feel has nothing to do with science, demonstrates they obviously have bees in their bonnet and that they are very uncomfortable. GOOD! Or are they bothering to offer venomous refutes to something they akin to hot air. I doubt it. The refutes to their science have apparently given them cause for hate and ridicule. Why bother, if the thing you are refuting has absolutely no foundation.

Their hatred keeps God on the agenda. Good!

 

[Thief]

Wrong....

Right.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Right.

So you know you're wrong?

 

[Caladan]

The origin of the problem you present is in your title. you push the assumption that there is a God. therefore it is natural that atheists will disprove your god. if you have not tested your god, making assumptions about such a deity is dangerous.

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 are interesting individuals, scientists and journalists who are strongly opinionated. this is what your god would expect had he existed. he would not want people wallowing before him and carrying a cross on their right shoulder marching into death and oblivion. God would be intellectually strong, sharp and alert and would expect thinking men to challenge him and debate with him the relevant and interesting issues of our contemporary society. science, religion and politics.

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?

Why do the 'believers' you are talking about not up for the challenge? why is their faith so weak that they cannot put an effort to get a firm grip on the scientific and political challenges of our time without projecting the wishes of make believe?
If believers are not strong enough for the fierce intellectual debates, how less do they understand their own religion.

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?

They do not focus on vague terms, or a vague god. they focus on specific ideas of god and case to case studies and problems rooted in religion and alternative beliefs.

Thoughts?

Plenty. faith? not as much.

 

[Thief]

The origin of the problem you present is in your title. you push the assumption that there is a God. therefore it is natural that atheists will disprove your god. Can't be done. if you have not tested your god making assumptions about such a deity is dangerous.


They are interesting individuals, scientists and journalists who are strongly opinionated. this is what your god would expect had he existed. he would not want people wallowing before him and carrying a cross on their right shoulder marching into death and oblivion. God would be intellectually strong, sharp and alert he would expect thinking men to challenge him and debate with him the relevant and interesting issues of our contemporary society. science, religion and politics.


Why do the 'believers' you are talking about not up for the challenge? why is their faith so weak that they cannot put an effort to get a firm grip on the scientific and political challenges of our time without projecting the wishes of make believe?
If believers are not strong enough for the fierce intellectual debates, how less do they understand their own religion.


They do not focus on vague terms, or a vague god. they focus on specific ideas of god and case to case studies and problems rooted in religion and alternative beliefs.


Plenty. faith? not as much.

There are problems with dogma.....granted.

But you know well....science cannot disprove God.

And yes God does expect some intellectual savvy.

But denial isn't smart.
Especially having surrendered you last breath and then to stand before an Almighty Creator.

oh...that's right....no afterlife....

 

[outhouse]

The origin of the problem you present is in your title. you push the assumption that there is a God. therefore it is natural that atheists will disprove your god. if you have not tested your god, making assumptions about such a deity is dangerous.


They are interesting individuals, scientists and journalists who are strongly opinionated. this is what your god would expect had he existed. he would not want people wallowing before him and carrying a cross on their right shoulder marching into death and oblivion. God would be intellectually strong, sharp and alert and would expect thinking men to challenge him and debate with him the relevant and interesting issues of our contemporary society. science, religion and politics.


Why do the 'believers' you are talking about not up for the challenge? why is their faith so weak that they cannot put an effort to get a firm grip on the scientific and political challenges of our time without projecting the wishes of make believe?
If believers are not strong enough for the fierce intellectual debates, how less do they understand their own religion.


They do not focus on vague terms, or a vague god. they focus on specific ideas of god and case to case studies and problems rooted in religion and alternative beliefs.


Plenty. faith? not as much.

well put

 

[Caladan]

There are problems with dogma.....granted.

It is the responsibility and even duty I would say of any member of a religion to understand his dogma and study its issues. to understand its problems in the current world.

But you know well....science cannot disprove God.

You are again going into the loop. science should not deal with the irrelevant. God is an idea.
If you cannot bring your god idea into physical and empirical observation you will be left with only an idea and the faith to support this idea.

But denial isn't smart.
Especially having surrendered you last breath and then to stand before an Almighty Creator.

Who do you think the creator will greet? a believer? or a man of science?
what did the believer produce? what did the researcher, the scholar, the scientist brought to the table?

oh...that's right....no afterlife....

Again lets test your afterlife on the empirical dissection table. I don't know where you live. but I live in the here and now.
right now I'm looking outside the window at my house and watch the park nearby in the dark hours, I listen to a CD by Natacha Atlas, and I work infront of a laptop screen.

 

[Thief]

It is the responsibility and even duty I would say of any member of a religion to understand his dogma and study its issues. to understand its problems in the current world.


You are again going into the loop. science should not deal with the irrelevant. God is an idea.
If you cannot bring your god idea into physical and empirical observation you will be left with only an idea and the faith to support this idea.


Who do you think the creator will greet? a believer? or a man of science?
what did the believer produce? what did the researcher, the scholar, the scientist brought to the table?


Again lets test your afterlife on the empirical dissection table. I don't know where you live. but I live in the here and now.
right now I'm looking outside the window at my house and watch the park nearby in the dark hours, I listen to a CD by Natacha Atlas, and I work infront of a computer screen.

And this is as far as you can see?

 

[outhouse]

theres a good reason the bible doesnt descibe much of the afterlife.

they know nothing about it

were talking about a people that imagined many things for what they didnt know, but they didnt go there with detail at all.

 

[Thief]

theres a good reason the bible doesnt descibe much of the afterlife.

they know nothing about it

were talking about a people that imagined many things for what they didnt know, but they didnt go there with detail at all.

And you would be near sighted as well.....

 

[waitasec]

And this is as far as you can see?

and you can say this because you KNOW better...





by faith that is....
:beach:

 

[Thief]

and you can say this because you KNOW better...





by faith that is....
:beach:

I won't be allowed a plea of ignorance...as I stand before angel and prophet.

I think you know that.

And having read my posts...your plea of ignorance is also gone.

 

[outhouse]

and you can say this because you KNOW better...





by faith that is....
:beach:

yes by want and imagination alone