What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[Willamena]

Dallas, but to think that "evidence" represents "proof" is very unscientific. If an atheist buys into that, they need to go back to school and take that science course again.

 

[DallasApple]

But its not obvious to them..the ones I've met and loved..its more obvious to them that there arent any signs...

Love

Dallas

but surely you point those signs out to them only to have have refuse to assign validity to them. Surely that can be seen as mocking God right? [/quote]

Um...no...if they are mean to me about it when I talk about it I would say they are mocking me..Not God..But if they simply think Im wrong about it being God in my life well then they are entitled to their opinion...the only thing I ask is if the information is "requested" of me I dont like to get made fun of when I answer..Simple respect..mutual respect goes many many miles...

Love

Dallas

 

[robtex]

..

And whats "divine intelligence"?

gnosticism. the ability to receive interpret and understand God's will.

This is true..Athiest from what I've seen want proof..And untill they see it they arent buying it..and they arent afraid to say it..They arent going with the "because God said" or "we are not supposed to understand" theory..Thats hard for anyone to swallow including myself I will admit..

Love

Dallas

actually not proof but evidence. The distinction is important due to the variance in their respective definitions.

Could you elaborate on why you see this as a potential short-coming and the ramifications of having a protocol of reality that is evidential based to the exclusion of faith in relation to assessing the validity of God.

If we use the "egg basket" analogy and you labeled your eggs what is in your basket that is missing from atheists basket and why do you feel it is important ?

 

[DallasApple]

Dallas, but to think that "evidence" represents "proof" is very unscientific. If an atheist buys into that, they need to go back to school and take that science course again.

O.K you are swirling my brain...

I guess I would be a hypocrite if I agreed..Because Im likely myself to believe that evidence is "proof" of something myself...Nott in all cases..I guess it just depends on what the evidence is and how "overwhelming" it is..and in what context..I mean all the variables..

Love

Dallas

 

[Sententia]

This is true..Athiest from what I've seen want proof..And untill they see it they arent buying it..and they arent afraid to say it..They arent going with the "because God said" or "we are not supposed to understand" theory..Thats hard for anyone to swallow including myself I will admit..

Love

Dallas

LOL God never said. The Bible said god said and the bible was written by man. God in the bible is a story. Made up. All fiction. Aesops fables.

God would not say.:help:

If there was a god he would be so far beyond what you could possibly comprehend. But this whole story of the god ... jesus on the cross... ressurection.... Its been told before. Ra... for instance. Look around. you see any Ra Worshippers?

Christianity is the latest passing fad for religion. The latest delusion. The greatest story ever told. :clap

IMHO that is. Creationism is a joke. :thud:

 

[DallasApple]

Great...Now Im getting laughed at again..

Oh well..Im getting kinda used to it now..

Love

Dallas

 

[Sententia]

Great...Now Im getting laughed at again..

Oh well..Im getting kinda used to it now..

Love

Dallas

Just pointing up the ludicrous nature of saying god said. To any sane person it sounds the same as... the voices in my head told me... or the leprechauns said we exist therefore leprechauns exist.

WHY CANT YOU ACCEPT THE LEPRECHAUNS?

The Leprechauns said they will love you!

The unicorns are there to Watch you! Just consult the book they wrote with their inked horns!!!

etc etc.... IMHO

 

[DallasApple]

gnosticism. the ability to receive interpret and understand God's will.



actually not proof but evidence. The distinction is important due to the variance in their respective definitions.

Could you elaborate on why you see this as a potential short-coming and the ramifications of having a protocol of reality that is evidential based to the exclusion of faith in relation to assessing the validity of God.

If we use the "egg basket" analogy and you labeled your eggs what is in your basket that is missing from atheists basket and why do you feel it is important ?

I dont see it as a short coming..I see it as human nature to use "evidence" to learn about things...

What is in my basket???..Sigh...I just feel or "know" God is there..I'm nothing special..I am no better than anyone else..I'm just me and part of me is I believe there is a God..and I believe He has influenced my life..and I give Him recognition for that..Im not hurting anybody by believing this in my life..I know that there are many that do and I say shame on them..

Love

Dallas

 

[robtex]

LOL God never said. The Bible said god said and the bible was written by man. God in the bible is a story. Made up. All fiction. Aesops fables.

God would not say.

She said she thought that not God. So maybe one of the beefs is non-theists not being able to recognize the difference between divinely transcribed messages and theists personal opinion?

Christianity is the latest passing fad for religion. The latest delusion. The greatest story ever told.

In that vein maybe some theist can expound on why they feel atheist reducing their faith to that of a fad, mythology or fairy tale as unreasonable ?

IMHO that is. Creationism is a joke.

I obviously don't buy into ID or creationism either but if one was a theist in the Christianity or Islam and didn't subscribe to either I would deduce they really don't understand their own religion or their method of believe rests entirely on fideism. Not only don't secular models provide areas of inclusion for a divinely inspired universe in addition they have heavy protocol on probability, statical analysis and empirical evidence all of which are not favorable to a Christian or Islamic world-view.

In that vein Christians and Muslims that by-pass the relationship between their religion and ID /creationism and whom do not assess it's sum as fideistic proclamation are by contrast proctoring a position of secular science over faith and were likely influence by secular thought which is support of course by atheist by a large percentage and could be construed as a "problem with atheism" that the advocation of secular science creates a sub-set of Christians and Muslims who find validity in a purely secular world-view in terms of biology other sciences.

In short if ones religious assessment is not a product of fideism and they find validity in biological propositions of life their faith may be perceived as diluted in relation to what is reasonable and as science is championed by many atheists they could be seen as a penetrator of "false knowledge" .

 

[DallasApple]

She said she thought that not God. So maybe one of the beefs is non-theists not being able to recognize the difference between divinely transcribed messages and theists personal opinion?




In that vein maybe some theist can expound on why they feel atheist reducing their faith to that of a fad, mythology or fairy tale as unreasonable ?



I obviously don't buy into ID or creationism either but if one was a theist in the Christianity or Islam and didn't subscribe to either I would deduce they really don't understand their own religion or their method of believe rests entirely on fideism. Not only don't secular models provide areas of inclusion for a divinely inspired universe in addition they have heavy protocol on probability, statical analysis and empirical evidence all of which are not favorable to a Christian or Islamic world-view.

In that vein Christians and Muslims that by-pass the relationship between their religion and ID /creationism and whom do not assess it's sum as fideistic proclamation are by contrast proctoring a position of secular science over faith and were likely influence by secular thought which is support of course by atheist by a large percentage and could be construed as a "problem with atheism" that the advocation of secular science creates a sub-set of Christians and Muslims who find validity in a purely secular world-view in terms of biology other sciences.

In short if ones religious assessment is not a product of fideism and they find validity in biological propositions of life their faith may be perceived as diluted in relation to what is reasonable and as science is championed by many atheists they could be seen as a penetrator of "false knowledge" .

Why do you have to use such big words?..Huh??

But yes I've been called a "crippled" and a "baby" Christian..As well as an "evangelical feminist destroying the Church"...

Because I dont buy it all hook line and sinker to be real honest..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

As a matter of fact..Im REALLY tempted to change my religion to "crippled Christian"..

Because I do NOT believe everthing was created in 6 days..(not the six days I go by like Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday (24/7).....

I do NOT believe you are going to hell for infinity if you are gay and live a gay life(yes gay sex)..In fact I dont think hell is a litteral place..I do NOT think you are going to hell if you dont believe in God..I just do not believe that..

Sorry...then I get called an "unbeliever"..But yet I believe..So Im screwed..

Love

Dallas

 

[robtex]

Why do you have to use such big words?..Huh??

1) When i was 19 I decided I wanted an extended "usable vocabulary and worked on developing one

2) I went to college where using big words is seen as cool

3) I read a lot and writers are more apt to use big words

But yes I've been called a "crippled" and a "baby" Christian..As well as an "evangelical feminist destroying the Church"...

Because I dont buy it all hook line and sinker to be real honest..

Love

Dallas

could make an interesting thread as how one determines the model or protocol on which aspects of their faith is valid and which is not?

 

[DallasApple]

1) When i was 19 I decided I wanted an extended "usable vocabulary and worked on developing one

2) I went to college where using big words is seen as cool

3) I read a lot and writers are more apt to use big words

Please be considerate of those who never finished high school..Let alone went to college.Like me..

I read a lot as well...But I talk plain..Im not critisizing you I just have to read your post sometimes several times and even go to Wikepedia!...but thats not your fault..I'll handle it...Maybe I'll advance conversing with you...

Love

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In defense of Dr. Dawkins I think it is important to point out that his entire field of study is in jeopardy by scheming creationists who want the fields of micro-biology and genetics to be left to God as opposed to by men educated in this field like Richard Dawkins.

The only one threatening Dawkins field is Dawkins. Maybe he's so vocal because he's secretly entertaing doubts about his position.

Stone -

If you can read the posts by Gadfly, then you can understand that is almost impossible not to ridicule them.

As for my "self centerdness", I'll have to decline the argument. My choice of a screen name is based on my use of rational thought to defend the positions I take on various subjects. If you notice, I never engage in debates about the Bible, since I do not accept the premise that is the divine word of God. You are confusing my choice of screen names with an outlook on life. It would be the same as if I were to foolishly assume that you are either a huge fan of the magazine, the group, or the lifestyle. Now, you may be any one of the three (or some combination thereof), but that would be coincedental to my assumption.

Your assertion that agnosticism is effectively atheism (your reference to William James nothwithstanding) demonstrates that, like Gadfly, you are unable to distinguish between the two positions. This is born of either ignorance, or a lack of intellectual curiosity on your part. Regardless of the reason, I will not engage your lack of understanding. When you have taken the time to learn the basic tenets of the two (and the differences between them), then perhaps we can enjoin in an informed debate. I will dismiss you (although you will see it as being ridiculed) until you destroy your own ignorance.

Lastly, your assertion that agnosticism is cowardly is quite revealing. Who is trying to ridicule whom?

hehe. Once again you demonstrate what's wrong with atheism.

Gadlfy and Rolling Stone -

This is what a theist with a brain looks like. You would do well to learn what it means to carry a conversation without going off the deep end.

If you want to see "going off the deep end, look at your post above.

The whole idea of cancer as a thing that can "win" is you losing.

That's the point. It's a forced decision. Not choosing is choosing.

For Gfly and RStone I suppose you can quote your conversations with God or articulate your personal revelations with God but realize that non-theists won't find merit in it and finding authors who are similar to your stance might be a better angle your position.

You're jumping to conclusions, Rob, proving my assessment. I don't quote as an appeal to authority, but because what is said is said better than I can say it. Period. That you nor anyone else respond to them is your failure.

I am not reading much of "what is wrong with atheism" so I guess I can post stuff i have heard before to be chewed on for discussion

1) p1 God is love
p2 Atheist don't believe in God
c1 therefore atheists don't believe in love.

2) Atheists life will either be a finite experience or one with eternal damnation at the conclusion of their biological life

3) Atheists mock God by ignoring the obvious signs that he exists.

4) Atheists put all their eggs in one basket by using evidence as the highest (or only) protocol for ascertaining their reality and in the same light diminish assessing their reality through faith.

5) Atheist inability to understand that they receive divine message or inability to receive them showed a diminished capacity to exist as a complete human being and may mark a diminished aspect of "divine intelligence" .

Do any of the theist see validity in those arguments and if so can you substantiate them for us?

Point 1 is stupid.

Point 2 is biased and simplistic (May be true in some cases, not in others.) See my original list.

Point 3 is stupid.

Point 4 has some merit. The demand for evidence to the exclusion of the inner life is not reasonable and living in a world ruled by ideas is not living.

Point 5 also has merit. I would change a few words: Atheist inability to understand that they receive divine message or inability to receive them showed a diminished capacity to exist as a complete human being and may mark a diminished capacity for the receptivity of "divine intelligence." This situation was addressed centuries ago. Example: we do not perceive colors the way bees do. Using atheism's logic, those colors, therefore, do not exist and is is a waste of time to develop tools adequate to the task. It is here where atheism and agnosticism are alike.

 

[gnomon]

I don't want to leave anyone out.

The biggest problem.

Putting up with incessant drivel.

edit: But that's probably just a part of life for everyone.

 

[Papersock]

All of the above. Facts are fixed, like images frozen in space and time; truth is life. Just as law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is in the living and not the acquirement of images captured in ideas.

Thanks for explaining that, though I still disagree. But that shouldn't be a surprise.

Well, starting out, I thought it was humorous. It was a fun thing.The logic in discussing serious issues was and has been so warped coming from mainly atheist zealots, it became a method to illustrate how unsound their reasoning was. You could not explain to them simple facts like Absolute Truth being another name for God. Even though these atheist did not have to agree with this statement, they often exploded in anger, not rebuttal, of what was said about truth. You can find that in a very close response given on this thread last night. How do you respond to such an explosion? You can not reason with it, you can not argue with it, you can not even avoid it, therefore, the GadFly just drops a fly bite on them. Sometimes it is just fun stuff and sometimes it says. I have had enough foolishness.

Who exploded?

Papersock, please invest in an Introduction to Philosophy textbook instead of allowing a dictionary to educate you by itself. To a person who believes in absolute truth. God is unalterable fact(s) and an inflexible reality. These are the qualities that make God Absolute. Try sticking with simple logic; atheistic logic is a pain and is so easy to spot.

GadFly

I didn’t get that definition from a dictionary. I got it from some sites on philosophy.

1) p1 God is love
p2 Atheist don't believe in God
c1 therefore atheists don't believe in love.

Someone actually said that..?

Love

Dallas

I’ve heard someone say something like that. Actually, I think she said if god isn’t real than there is no love.

 

[DallasApple]

I’ve heard someone say something like that. Actually, I think she said if god isn’t real than there is no love.

Gosh...I hope it wasnt me ...

Thats *** backwards..Sorry..

Love (only because I believe in God)

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

Rolling Stone, the more you try to point out the "faults" as you see them with atheism, the more you show that you're merely projecting.

 

[fantome profane]

The only one threatening Dawkins field is Dawkins. Maybe he's so vocal because he's secretly entertaing doubts about his position.

How likely do you really think that is? Do you think that your being vocal is a sign that you are secretly entertaining doubts?

That's the point. It's a forced decision. Not choosing is choosing.

Choosing or not choosing what? Do you really believe it is an black and white decision?

 

[Willamena]

Just pointing up the ludicrous nature of saying god said. To any sane person it sounds the same as... the voices in my head told me... or the leprechauns said we exist therefore leprechauns exist.

At least to one particular person who considers himself sane.