Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Is it? I don't think so. A "dad explanation" is not necessarily fraud and deception. It is more often ignorance more than anything else.
-
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!
I think I am now an atheist
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One started out as satire. The other may have started out largely as self serving deception. I would prefer the satire myself.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One started out as satire. The other may have started out largely as self serving deception. I would prefer the satire myself.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No. If "dad" claims that it is Divine, and many others do too, it warrants further investigation.
Some people just don't want Divine guidance .. and they don't like others controlling them either. [ anarchism ]
They want to be free to do whatever lewd behaviour they might wish to engage in.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Unfortunately we accepted Dad's account for thousands of years. Now that we are doing further investigation it appears that Dad was full of it.
And this has nothing to do with your false accusations.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Battle of Badr. When the Meccans heard their caravan was about to be attacked, they raised an army of 1000 men at a moment's notice. Even if it was made up from every single adult male in Mecca (which it wasn't), that would still leave a couple of thousand women and children. Therefore, a population of several thousand.
For the Battle of the Trench, the Quraysh provided an army of over 5,000. Therefore the population was at leat 10,000.
Well, you don't seem to know.
Once again, you miss the point of it. It is an exercise to demonstrate the unfalsifiability of claims that gods exist.
Have you managed to disprove the existence of the FSM yet? If not, surely you must accept it is a possibility?
Or do you accept that being unable to disprove something is not an argument for its existence?
Remember that I find your god just as silly as you find the FSM, and for the same reasons.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Not really. It is just giving their opinion. They might think their idea to be perfectly reasonable.
Augustus
…
Use whatever phrase you like, it doesn't cause me to misunderstand your position. As long as you know how someone uses a word it doesn't matter.
As I said, it's just a normative preference as when some people use "lack of belief" I think it can cause some of them to misunderstand certain things (for example, that they have not taken a stance).
This matters little in most circumstances, but can be consequential. Although in a very different context, Marx discussed something similar so it's not just me who thinks this, although that might be another "side road"
They are not terms I would ever use, but the category of weak atheists includes babies and those unaware of gods so they can be different. I don't think unawareness of gods is the same as disbelief.
I see no cognitive difference between someone saying "I disbelieve in the existence of gods" or "I believe gods don't exist" though.
So some "weak atheists" are no different from "strong atheists".
I'll see when people use them in context. They sound slightly contrived though.
A form of anti-theistic secular humanism, typified by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. that promotes "Enlightenment values", scepticism, science and reason and sees theistic religions as very harmful anachronisms that society would be better off without.
It can't be defined with absolute precision as it is a somewhat fuzzy concept, but neither can many other things like, for example, indie music. It's also a proper noun, so it's not particularly important that it was not "new" at the time which tends to be a common grumble.
What is your opinion on this? Disbelief fits much better, doesn't it?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Once again, you miss the point.
The only difference between the two is that one has been established over centuries and has millions of followers. The fact that the other was conceived as an exercise to illustrate the flaw in an apologists' argument is irrelevant.
If you find it easier, replace FSM with Bahaism. Both are established beliefs that are held in genuine high esteem by their devout followers. Both sincerely believe that they are following the words of an actual messenger of an actual god. Both believe they have "evidences" or "proofs" for the truth of their religion.
Now explain the difference.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
You can say that again!
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
And that further investigation shows that there is nothing to support the "divine" claims.
Question begging. You assume that atheists are aware that there is divine guidance but reject it. For us, there is nothing to reject.
It's like saying you don't want divine Bahullah's guidance.
The opposite of "authoritarianism" isn't "anarchy"
What an odd thing to say.
Do you really think that atheists know that Islam is true, but reject it so they can "do lewd behaviour"? What even is "lewd behaviour"?
And tbh, "lewd" doesn't even come close to describing the sexual depravity of making concubines from captive women - something permitted in Islam, so not sure what your argument is there.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Indeed. Mine told me that when the ice cream truck was playing a tune, it meant it had run out of ice cream.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..but you are too smart to "fall for it" .
I would rather stay in my "ignorance" thanks..
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yeah, well you worship your spaghetti monster, and I will continue worshiping the Creator and Maintainer of the universe.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yeah, well you stick to your secular beliefs of "prison for life" .. I know what I would prefer.
Kill me, here and now.
It is cruelty to keep people in captivity, while they suffer to such an extent they try to commit suicide, but they are prevented.
Your morals are disgusting to ME !
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
None of this is true. 1. Atheist are normally law-abiding people. 2. We normally do not engage in lewd behavior.
We do not believe in God, so do not need divine guidance. Sure, we do not like to be controlled by others.
We would turn purple if we are address as "O my servants". We are nobody's servants.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you think that the version of God that you worship is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe? Why do you even think that such a being is needed?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You do not live in the UK..
It has a reputation for drunken behaviour..
You would rather have your OWN laws, which is more or less what I said.
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Well, mankind has proved foolish. Look what we are doing to our planet, threatening our grandchildren's security.
You can accuse "religionists" of being the main culprits, but that is devious .. over half the global population is either Christian or Muslim, yet many don't "practice what they preach".
I have the answer, but most people say it is impractical to change the financial system. It is merely an excuse, imo.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not evidence for a God. This is the problem with theists, they can see a problem, that is good, but they appear to make up a being to "fix" it.
So once again, do you have any evidence or do you just have bad arguments?
As to changing the financial system. It might work. You really need a working example to claim that you have a solution.