The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[BilliardsBall]

And that is a fair question. I would say that empathy is a strong motivator. Along similar lines there are theories of justice that are support a notion of non judgementality towards others. We are social creatures, we have social needs and wants. Other ideas suggest that we evolved to cooperate. Love and compassion are strong motivating forces. I personally don't understand how anyone could suggest that a particular belief be enough to negate these factors.

I know that being an atheist can make me no more human or inhumane than being a theist can make you such.

Your experiences, knowledge, and environment have led you to the belief that God exists. I do not think you have a choice to not believe. You could no more decide to not believe than I could choose to believe. The idea that I judge, reject, belittle, ridicule, etc over this is disconnected with my thought process. I have acted hurtful to others in the past for beliefs, not religious beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless (mostly political if you are curious). I can certainly get frustrated when others cannot see what I think I see so clearly. But that too is an attribute commonly found in all of us. Is it logical? No. But I certainly have not seen a belief yet that completely negates this.

I was raised around many religious people. These are people for whom I have cared deeply. When you care about others who have diverse beliefs, it is much harder to ridicule people for those beliefs.

Cheers

Well said! Cheers.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't understand how Rev. 19:6 either agrees or disagrees with your claims above:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

So I cannot argue with you.

I would say, God exists and understands, based on the fact that human authors who've died were inspired to put down prophecies fulfilled dozens to thousands of years following their deaths.

I understand you will have several reasons why prophetic predictions were luck or coincidence, but once you've studied over one hundred such prophecies, as I have, the claim is irrefutable.

Seems,you are unacquainted with the definition of omnipotent.

In a world of 150 billion+ people since the ot, and writings of general ideas, coincidences will happen. Some, with an agenda will even say they are fulfilled prophecies, thgars up to your conscience. The author Arthur C Clarke has had more predictions come true in 80 years than the Bible has in 3000 years.

No, its not irrefutable, there are several valid possibilities. The reason you claim "irrefutable" is a/ wishful thinking and b/ a poor grasp of probability

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'll bet that you could even tell me where your wedding took place. Unlike the Resurrection.
I am confident that Moses and the Prophets would vehemently disagree. And if Scripture is particularly reliable guide they have a far better connection to the God of Abraham than modern people do.
Tom

Wrong. Jerusalem! But there's better evidence (documentary, prophecy) for the resurrection than for my wedding! More witnesses, too!

You are confident that Moses and the prophets would disagree with the Lord, despite Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus to discuss His resurrection?!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Seems,you are unacquainted with the definition of omnipotent.

In a world of 150 billion+ people since the ot, and writings of general ideas, coincidences will happen. Some, with an agenda will even say they are fulfilled prophecies, thgars up to your conscience. The author Arthur C Clarke has had more predictions come true in 80 years than the Bible has in 3000 years.

No, its not irrefutable, there are several valid possibilities. The reason you claim "irrefutable" is a/ wishful thinking and b/ a poor grasp of probability

I like Arthur Clarke's writing very much. I'm aware of his belief system and also his high intelligence. Arthur C. Clarke had hundreds of specific predictions come to be exactly true?! Wow. I just reread his "2010" novel in 2016 and he made quite a lot of mistakes about 2010.

You are right, no proof of Jesus is irrefutable since hard-hearted people reject Christ when faced with even VERY compelling evidence. Good point.

 

[ChristineM]

I like Arthur Clarke's writing very much. I'm aware of his belief system and also his high intelligence. Arthur C. Clarke had hundreds of specific predictions come to be exactly true?! Wow. I just reread his "2010" novel in 2016 and he made quite a lot of mistakes about 2010.

You are right, no proof of Jesus is irrefutable since hard-hearted people reject Christ when faced with even VERY compelling evidence. Good point.

And a considerable amount that has become accurate. And that's just 1 of 14 books he's written.

You seem to be misrepresenting my lost, I won't say you are lying but...

I shall repeat my comment

No, its not irrefutable, there are several valid possibilities. The reason you claim "irrefutable" is a/ wishful thinking and b/ a poor grasp of probability

Want to try again?

Would you like to present some of that evidence? Or is that more "misrepresentation"

 

[BilliardsBall]

And a considerable amount that has become accurate. And that's just 1 of 14 books he's written.

You seem to be misrepresenting my lost, I won't say you are lying but...

I shall repeat my comment

No, its not irrefutable, there are several valid possibilities. The reason you claim "irrefutable" is a/ wishful thinking and b/ a poor grasp of probability

Want to try again?

Would you like to present some of that evidence? Or is that more "misrepresentation"

You have responded to the evidence I've presented thus far with insults and mocking. So, no.

I'm happy to chat with people who want to hear witness or a testimony, less happy to chat with people looking to fight with me.

 

[ChristineM]

You have responded to the evidence I've presented thus far with insults and mocking. So, no.

I'm happy to chat with people who want to hear witness or a testimony, less happy to chat with people looking to fight with me.

From my point, it seems you are unhappy chatting to people who disagree with you, those who logically, and often with evidence, point out the fallacy of your claims.

Pointing out that you are not being honest about my comments, rather you are completely misrepresenting to put your own claim in a positive light

Pointing out dishonesty is not insult and mockery, that is truth and fact.

 

[Looncall]

From my point, it seems you are unhappy chatting to people who disagree with you, those who logically, and often with evidence, point out the fallacy of your claims.

Pointing out that you are not being honest about my comments, rather you are completely misrepresenting to put your own claim in a positive light

Pointing out dishonesty is not insult and mockery, that is truth and fact.

Maybe insult and mockery would work better. I read that one cannot reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into. Could one laugh or shame them out of one such?

 

[BilliardsBall]

From my point, it seems you are unhappy chatting to people who disagree with you, those who logically, and often with evidence, point out the fallacy of your claims.

Pointing out that you are not being honest about my comments, rather you are completely misrepresenting to put your own claim in a positive light

Pointing out dishonesty is not insult and mockery, that is truth and fact.

Then respectfully, I suggest you stick to the truth and facts. If you like, go back through your past posts where you make comments (paraphrasing) like "don't you know how science works?"

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe insult and mockery would work better. I read that one cannot reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into. Could one laugh or shame them out of one such?

Nah, nothing works, but at least the facts can be offered,irs up to them whether the honestly evacuate them

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe insult and mockery would work better. I read that one cannot reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason into. Could one laugh or shame them out of one such?

Ridicule is a respected form of criticism with a hallowed tradition. It's what the people like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel, and Trevor Noah do daily in their commentary on the news and politics. It's what Carlin and Lenny Bruce did, and what Maher does weekly.

It's also what the enlightened kings that permitted court jesters to ridicule them did. It was recognized as a legitimate form of criticism. It's what Swift and Orwell did in their allegories. Likewise with magazines like Mad Magazine and National Lampoon. Here are some assorted takes on the topic:

• "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss

• "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - Pat Condell

• "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." – anon

• "Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke

• The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense! - Brian Cox

• "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion. I think it should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right". - Christopher Hitchens

• "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[ChristineM]

Then respectfully, I suggest you stick to the truth and facts. If you like, go back through your past posts where you make comments (paraphrasing) like "don't you know how science works?"

I always do.

Where have i said "don't you know how science works" or similarity? I have often discredited your scientific claims, particularly those requiring god magic. Other than that, i dont think so.

 

[Desert Snake]

I say that arguing isn't a "plight" at all.
It's just the human condition....one which we're all here on RF to enjoy.

The plight isn't the arguing, the plight is that theism will always be the preeminent perspective. The arguing is a result of that plight, that problem.

Syncretic, you've got atheism all wrong, a complete distortion in fact.

I don't think so. Actually atheism has more problems, but this is probably a main problem.

No, atheism is NOT a religion, or even a belief system.

Neither is theism, technically. Word definitions aren't how we define these things.

True atheism applies only to those who say "I have no evidence of the supernatural".

You might want to tell explicit atheists that, as explicit atheism can't be drawn from that conclusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

The plight isn't the arguing, the plight is that theism will always be the preeminent perspective. The arguing is a result of that plight, that problem.

Not preeminent.
Not a problem.

 

[corynski]

Ridicule is a respected form of criticism with a hallowed tradition. It's what the people like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Kimmel, and Trevor Noah do daily in their commentary on the news and politics. It's what Carlin and Lenny Bruce did, and what Maher does weekly.

It's also what the enlightened kings that permitted court jesters to ridicule them did. It was recognized as a legitimate form of criticism. It's what Swift and Orwell did in their allegories. Likewise with magazines like Mad Magazine and National Lampoon. Here are some assorted takes on the topic:

• "No idea should be above ridicule. Ridicule is a very important tool. And why should religion not be subject to ridicule? If politics, if science, if sex, if everything is subject to ridicule, as a way of illuminating reality, why shouldn't religion?" - Prof. Lawrence Krauss

• "If religion contained any truth, it could be ridiculed, insulted, even defiled, without being diminished in any way. Its truth would shine through: undimmed, unblemished, shaming those who abused it into silence." - Pat Condell

• "Ridicule is the great equalizer against the angry, harsh judgment coming from the pulpit. It is much kinder, because it doesn't ask you to hurt the target like the angry scapegoating from the church, just laugh at it. We can offer reasoned argument to those that can care about such things, and appeal to the consciences of those that have them. But ridicule is useful to intimidate those not amenable to either." – anon

• "Religions' entire authority and real-world power are undergirded by their abilities to command reverence and deference and create the illusion that they are sacred, sacrosanct, and immune from fundamental criticism or ridicule." - Dan Fincke

• The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense! - Brian Cox

• "I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion. I think it should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right". - Christopher Hitchens

• "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson

Well said, and well supported....... We should try to deal with what is, the shared reality we experience daily, not the idiosyncratic products of our imaginations. Science attempts this, religion does not.

 

[corynski]

The plight isn't the arguing, the plight is that theism will always be the preeminent perspective. The arguing is a result of that plight, that problem.




I don't think so. Actually atheism has more problems, but this is probably a main problem.

Neither is theism, technically. Word definitions aren't how we define these things.

You might want to tell explicit atheists that, as explicit atheism can't be drawn from that conclusion.

And what is an 'explicit atheist' as compared to an 'non explicit atheist'. Not believing is simply not having any evidence with which to make a decision.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I always do.

Where have i said "don't you know how science works" or similarity? I have often discredited your scientific claims, particularly those requiring god magic. Other than that, i dont think so.

Well, we both keep missing the main point--relationship. A relationship with the magnificent God of the universe is paramount!

 

[ChristineM]

Well, we both keep missing the main point--relationship. A relationship with the magnificent God of the universe is paramount!

You are welcome, I don't do relationships with fantasy figures.

 

[Mister Silver]

You are welcome, I don't do relationships with fantasy figures.

There needs to be reciprocation for it to be considered a relationship anyway, and mythological beings cannot reciprocate.

 

[ChristineM]

There needs to be reciprocation for it to be considered a relationship anyway, and mythological beings cannot reciprocate.

A most valid and excellent point.