Just making posts hostile to usI don't hate atheists at all.
& mis-representative about us.
Such over-zealousness in such
attacks.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just making posts hostile to usI don't hate atheists at all.
Are you sure you are leaving yourself room enough to notice if one walks through the door?I agree that most atheists simply aren't interested in the theist proposition. But they rarely come to this site.
It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism. And I don't criticize anyone out of "hate". I do it as a favor to anyone wise enough to listen and consider. But people's egos get their old knees a-jerkin' and the opportunity being offered usually ends up being completely wasted. So be it. I'm still here. I'll offer again.Just making posts hostile to us
& mis-representative about us.
Such over-zealousness in such
attacks.
I tolerate your posts.It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism.
Well, I didn't use that word.And I don't criticize anyone out of "hate".
Wise folk will consider,I do it as a favor to anyone wise enough to listen and consider.
You're in no position to disBut people's egos get their old knees a-jerkin' and the opportunity being offered usually ends up being completely wasted. So be it. I'm still here. I'll offer again.
I'm not responsible for your hostility.I tolerate your posts.
But I'll criticize them for errors & hostility.
Can you take it?
It's not my doing that you all can't tolerate any kind of criticism.
Do you have an example of a God that atheists are prematurely denying exists?On another thread someone asked atheists why and how they became atheists. And nearly every response sited some unresolvable issue with religion, and/or with how some religion was defining God. The idea being that as the atheist rejected the God as it was defined by that religion, they rejected the idea of God all together.
And for some reason the irrationality of this thought process never seems to have crossed anyone's mind. As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.
"A chihuahua bit me once as a kid so I reject and despise all dogs to this day."
It seems to me that there is a strong prejudice being served, here. As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".
So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.Criticism is fine. But respect to reality and some honest effort to avoid libel are necessary.
But can you take it?I'm not responsible for your hostility.
So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.
Just read the responses being posted on that other thread by atheists explaining why they are atheist and you will see for yourself that nearly every single one of them is whining about how some religious people treated them badly, and how they couldn't accept the absurdly childish depictions of God that they ALLOWED THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO DICTATE TO THEM. And when they rejected it, they rejected the entire concept of God in all it's possible variations along with it with narry a moment's consideration.
And they are STILL rejected the entire idea based on the same irrational resentments and idiotic arguments (no evidence, religion bad). And when I dare to bring up how irrational this all is, oh, my! The howl of disdain! The butt-hurt egos! And the accusations of hatred! Everything but an actual honest, considered response.
And none of this is my fault. I'm just making some obvious, critical observations, here. To people who are constantly proclaiming how critically thoughtful they are. And so should be grateful for the challenge. And yet for some reason they are behaving like spoiled toddlers.
I am not "upset". I couldn't care less what you think or how you feel about God. I am simply pointing out the obvious irrationality I am seeing in the proclaimed decision by people that are constantly also proclaiming their love for rationality.It sounds like you are upset ...
Again, I don't care what you think or hw you feel about God. I don't care what you think or how you feel about those who do 'believe in' God. As I have stated many times now, the whole point of this thread was to point out the obvious irrationality of tossing the ideological baby ut with the bathwater. Can you address this? Or are you going to continue to present me with how you imagine me to be feeling?... that we didn't try to salvage our belief in God by resorting to wishful thinking.
Theism is a valid philosophical proposition. And there are a number of logical and valid ways one might choose to respond to it, including the atheist contra-proposition. Whining about religious depictions that you don't accept isn't one of them. Neither is claiming religion is bad, whether it is or not.As if we had pull from our buttocks a depiction that would satisfy a need we don't feel.
As has been explained a hundred times.Lack of evidence is an idiotic argument to reject a supernatural claim....? How come?
I don't recall ever seeing you presentAs has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.
There is evidence, but evidence for what?As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.
The OP is about differentiating between god and religion. I.e. we have also to differentiate between evidence for god and evidence for religion or any other phenomenon.2. That you reject any evidence that does not support your irrational demands is not evidence against theism.
Evidence I can't validate is not evidence, it's hearsay.3. Not getting evidence that you didn't look for, can't identify, and can't validate means nothing.
Is there anything like a theist proposition? "Theist" is an umbrella term for proponents of multiple religions, but is there any "pure" theist, who is not also a member of a religion?4. Your argument with the term "supernatural" is a semantic argument that has no standing regarding the theist proposition.
Just for starters.
Not a question of definition or conceptualization, what matters is evidence. What evidence do you have for it?As evidenced by a blanket dismissal prior to any honest exploration or investigation into the many possible ways we humans might choose to define or conceptualize "God".
Well you can exclude me from the 'every single one', given I have said enough times that it is purely down to the probabilities of religions coming from some divine source that I question - based on various factors - and I have no grudge against any religion other than the negative effects they often cause, in my view. So I don't accept their depictions of God other than as projections. As to any God as a concept, for me the evidence that I have come across, as to human life, all other life, and as to the universe that we currently know, these also point to there not being a God as an explanation, although like many not so arrogant, I have to leave this open to some extent because of lack of information and knowledge.So far, all I see is a lot of whining. What I don't see is anyone offering a reasonable, logical, rebuttal.
Just read the responses being posted on that other thread by atheists explaining why they are atheist and you will see for yourself that nearly every single one of them is whining about how some religious people treated them badly, and how they couldn't accept the absurdly childish depictions of God that they ALLOWED THESE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO DICTATE TO THEM. And when they rejected it, they rejected the entire concept of God in all it's possible variations along with it with narry a moment's consideration.
And they are STILL rejected the entire idea based on the same irrational resentments and idiotic arguments (no evidence, religion bad). And when I dare to bring up how irrational this all is, oh, my! The howl of disdain! The butt-hurt egos! And the accusations of hatred! Everything but an actual honest, considered response.
And none of this is my fault. I'm just making some obvious, critical observations, here. To people who are constantly proclaiming how critically thoughtful they are. And so should be grateful for the challenge. And yet for some reason they are behaving like spoiled toddlers.
There is the logical philosophical evidence for an intelligent creator of some kind. There is the anecdotal evidence of millions of people's direct experience of some sort of God being. There is the development of the God ideal occurring in every culture in every time period and in every location on Earth.There is evidence, but evidence for what?
There is some weak evidence for an afterlife (NDE).
There is evidence for some of the religions, e.g. some reports of Christians in the first century.
But where is the evidence for a "god"?
We need no evidence for religion as it is all around us. The problem here is not recognizing that religion is a practice, not proposition. And theism is a proposition, not a practice. The depictions of gods in religion are intended for the purpose of theological practice. Not for the purpose of defining theism. Or even a theology. So when you dislike or otherwise reject some religious depiction of God, it has no relation to the theist proposition or even, sometimes, to the theology from which it derives and is intended to serve. The OT God is a good example of this in that it's depiction often contradicts the theology being promoted by the NT.The OP is about differentiating between god and religion. I.e. we have also to differentiate between evidence for god and evidence for religion or any other phenomenon.
You are not the definer of what is and is not evidence. And presuming that you are is a sure way of solidifying your own confirmation bias. When the whole world becomes your own personal kangaroo court, you'll never be wrong about anything.Evidence I can't validate is not evidence, it's hearsay.
Still, you insist on confusing theism with religion. Just as I pointed out in the OP. And still you want to define the terms by personalities rather than ideas. It's like it's a kind of pathological sickness. Or an addiction. Intractable.Is there anything like a theist proposition? "Theist" is an umbrella term for proponents of multiple religions, but is there any "pure" theist, who is not also a member of a religion?
I am not "upset". I couldn't care less what you think or how you feel about God. I am simply pointing out the obvious irrationality I am seeing in the proclaimed decision by people that are constantly also proclaiming their love for rationality.
Again, I don't care what you think or hw you feel about God. I don't care what you think or how you feel about those who do 'believe in' God. As I have stated many times now, the whole point of this thread was to point out the obvious irrationality of tossing the ideological baby ut with the bathwater. Can you address this? Or are you going to continue to present me with how you imagine me to be feeling?
Theism is a valid philosophical proposition. And there are a number of logical and valid ways one might choose to respond to it, including the atheist contra-proposition. Whining about religious depictions that you don't accept isn't one of them. Neither is claiming religion is bad, whether it is or not.
As has been explained a hundred times.
1. There IS evidence. And lots of it.
2. That you reject any evidence that does not support your irrational demands is not evidence against theism.
3. Not getting evidence that you didn't look for, can't identify, and can't validate means nothing.
4. Your argument with the term "supernatural" is a semantic argument that has no standing regarding the theist proposition.
Just for starters.
That may be indeed a source of our misunderstanding. "Evidence" has multiple meanings, depending on the field where it is used. You seem to be in favour of using the judicial definition. (You also mentioned "court".)You are not the definer of what is and is not evidence. And presuming that you are is a sure way of solidifying your own confirmation bias. When the whole world becomes your own personal kangaroo court, you'll never be wrong about anything.
If an atheist (forum member or otherwise) approached you asking for help with a drinking problem, and expressed apprehension about the religious aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous, would you accuse them of being an illogical and irrational mirror image of a religious zealot or let them know that a "higher power" can mean anything?It’s irrational.
It’s irrational.