Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since all atheists (on this forum, anyway) condemn the righteous without just cause, my comments are truthful, not bigoted.

Who's condemning who here? It's you doing the condemning. We merely reject your theology and bigotry.

Truthful? There is no truth to your position about either atheists or your religious beliefs.

The righteous? Is that what you call yourself? I rate bigots a lot lower than that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I thought about and researched this incredible journey with Jesus and thought long and hard before committing to a lifetime of hassle by people with their feet in shallower waters.

What is shallower than faith?

I really didn't want to spend my life talking to people who hassle me for telling them the truth.

Then you made another bad decision. You have no truth. You only have faith-based beliefs.

I'll tell you what I didn't do, however, I didn't come to some forum and hassle and humiliate religious people while I knew only a little about Jesus Christ and His followers.

No, you came to express your atheophobic bigotry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you are confusing the fact that you and I do horrid things with all people being completely depraved. They are not.

But I know as do you that you've done acts that shame you. If you remain unashamed, you've closed down your conscience. That "people reality" points me toward Jesus.

The last shameful thing I did was in college, and I have recognized my mistake since then and apologized to her. I wanted to escape from a relationship and did so badly.

My only other mistake like that was in elementary school, and I have found her on Facebook and apologized to her. She was a severely hearing impaired girl, and we ridiculed her for her deaf speech. I do regret that, and am grateful to have had the chance to have told her that my behavior has bothered me ever since I realized its inappropriateness.

You may do horrid things, but I don't - not since my youth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, you trimming a verse to a few words from it when there's an entire passage is silly. Your quotation in context referred to the fact that calling people fool instead of @#@#$@#$ is still enough for Hell. It's referring to the holiness of God and our lack of same!

Nope.

Your god as described is far from holy. It's also far from moral

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible explains what skeptics are like.

I listed that. It's pure hate speech.

I'm still yet to meet atheists who love their enemies and persecutors. Quite the opposite, actually.

Loving enemies is foolish. I reject the idea of loving enemies. They should be abandoned. You've never offered a counterargument to that. You just mindlessly repeat ideas you can't and don't even try to defend.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't know me and your accusations of what kind of person I am are baseless and crude. I am an ethical Humanist and do not, could never "do horrid things" nor consider "all people being completely depraved."

Your view of humanity is sick. If that's what your beliefs have taught you, you really should find better beliefs.

I'd love for him to make an appearance on the thread called "Antitheism?" which discusses the reasons to be anti-Abrahamic, and why the world would be better with less religion like his in it. His religion has made him an atheophobic bigot, and he has explained how he got that way: "The Bible explains what skeptics are like."

What more does an atheist need to know to justify taking an active role against his religion? He also bemoaned the idea of, "Lying down and listening reverently to atheists blaspheme on forums?" That is exactly the attitude that atheists should take against his religion. We have no reason to roll over for such treatment.

And then he wants to blame the atheists for persecuting him after persecuting atheists and drawing a reaction. This is what his religion has taught him to do

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I am wrong, that doesn't make one right. Right?
For one being right, one has to give positive evidences for one's "No-God" position non-position. Regards

Why does an atheist need to give evidence for his "No-God" position? The atheist is merely telling you that he doesn't believe you or anybody else that claims that there is a god. He's telling you that as a rational skeptic, he needs a reason to believe things, and that he has no reason to believe in a god.

An atheist also need not try to convince you he's right, although common sense should tell you that he has made the only rational choice. It's exactly the way you view vampires and leprechauns. I am presuming that you don't believe in their existence. Do you know why? Do you feel a need to give "positive evidences"? What would those be? No vampires or leprechauns visible in the room right now?

Atheism is as correct a position to take as avampirism and aleprchaunsm for exactly the same reason. There is no more reason to believe in gods than vampires or leprechauns, and without a reason, why believe it.

Assuming that they want to convince, the burden of proof rests with whomever is claiming that gods exist, not those who won't accept the claim without sufficient evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Since nobody has come out with any positive evidence for "no-God" position or non-position, and God has conversed with many human beings so belief in God is most reasonable. Right? Please
Regards

There is not only no evidence that anybody has spoken with a god, there's excellent evidence that they haven't. They describe different gods.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I have two socks that appear identical to me numbered 1 and 2. Then I independently interview a number of people who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that sock 1 is red and the other half tell me it's green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

It's by this same method that I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies
Are Devoutly Religious Congregations More Racist? - Science and Religion Today
Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.

Excellent. You can add these meta-studies:

http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf
[URL]http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf[/URL]

 

[paarsurrey]

There is not only no evidence that anybody has spoken with a god, there's excellent evidence that they haven't. They describe different gods.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I have two socks that appear identical to me numbered 1 and 2. Then I independently interview a number of people who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that sock 1 is red and the other half tell me it's green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

It's by this same method that I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds.

"How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?"
How bout thinking one is simply color blind?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Why does an atheist need to give evidence for his "No-God" position? The atheist is merely telling you that he doesn't believe you or anybody else that claims that there is a god. He's telling you that as a rational skeptic, he needs a reason to believe things, and that he has no reason to believe in a god.

An atheist also need not try to convince you he's right, although common sense should tell you that he has made the only rational choice. It's exactly the way you view vampires and leprechauns. I am presuming that you don't believe in their existence. Do you know why? Do you feel a need to give "positive evidences"? What would those be? No vampires or leprechauns visible in the room right now?

Atheism is as correct a position to take as avampirism and aleprchaunsm for exactly the same reason. There is no more reason to believe in gods than vampires or leprechauns, and without a reason, why believe it.

Assuming that they want to convince, the burden of proof rests with whomever is claiming that gods exist, not those who won't accept the claim without sufficient evidence.

Is it simply an admission that they, the Atheism, have no evidence of their "no-God" position non-position? They only ask others of the evidences. Please
Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?"
How bout thinking one is simply color blind?
Regards

So you're suggesting that the guy who can't see colors that other can see is color blind?
I don't know why that never occurred to me.

No comment about the method for deciding whether I can't see something that others are reporting that is really there, or whether the reason I can see such a thing is because others are reporting something that isn't? That was the point of the post.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it simply an admission that they, the Atheism, have no evidence of their "no-God" position non-position? They only ask others of the evidences. Please
Regards

Yes, that's how it works. If a person makes a claim that he wants others to believe, he assumes a burden of proof.

The theist is making the claim, not the atheist. The atheist is merely rejecting the claim for lack of support without making a claim of his own.

If he does and wants to be believed, then the atheist has also assumed a burden of proof.

Do you object to that or consider it unfair?

 

[Thumper]

Is it simply an admission that they, the Atheism, have no evidence of their "no-God" position non-position? They only ask others of the evidences. Please
Regards

It is not a "no-god" position, it is a "no evidence for any god" position. If this is too hard for you to understand, maybe you should back away from the keyboard and turn the computer off before you hurt yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, that's how it works. If a person makes a claim that he wants others to believe, he assumes a burden of proof.
The theist is making the claim, not the atheist. The atheist is merely rejecting the claim for lack of support without making a claim of his own.
If he does and wants to be believed, then the atheist has also assumed a burden of proof.
Do you object to that or consider it unfair?

Doesn't one claim to be an Atheist? Please
Regards

 

[Thumper]

Doesn't one claim to be an Atheist? Please
Regards

No. I claim to find no reason to believe in gods without evidence. People like you want to stick a label on me and call me an atheist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn't one claim to be an Atheist? Please
Regards

This one does.

But I assume no burden of proof in so doing. How can I? I need make no other claim to be an atheist beyond that I don't accept any god claims. Atheism is the answer "No" to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods." What do I need to prove to you or anybody else at that point?

If I go further and state that gods do not exist, and I want you to believe me, then I have a burden of proof. If I don't care whether you believe me or not, once again, I have no burden of proof, and you have the right to treat that claim as an unsupported opinion that needs no rebuttal. As Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[Thumper]

Doesn't one claim to be an Atheist? Please
Regards

The word "atheist" (or atheism) is not a proper noun. It is nothing more than a category, just like theism.

There may (in fact are) numerous world views within these categories which are formally defined, but not the categories themselves.

For theism, there's Catholicism, thousands of Protestant sects, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, etc.

For atheism, there Buddhism, Humanism, Jainism, etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. I claim to find no reason to believe in gods without evidence. People like you want to stick a label on me and call me an atheist.

I never tried to put any label on anybody unless one claims to be as such. If one claims to be an atheist, then one is an Atheist, no need of any proof or evidence. Right? Please
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never tried to put any label on anybody unless one claims to be as such. If one claims to be an atheist, then one is an Atheist, no need of any proof or evidence. Right? Please
Regards

So people who call themselves atheists are never wrong?