What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[Magic Man]

How many times and in how many ways do I have to say its not about beliefs and quality of life is at stake? :sarcastic

I won't be expecting an answer.

Once for the second part. I'm just shocked that you finally decided to answer that. The first part: If it's not about beliefs, why do you draw the line between atheism and theism? If it's not about beliefs, either one would be just as good, right?

And I take it you're saying that your quality of life is better than an atheist's? In what way?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... The reason that you are having little success at that is that there is a God and he is on my side. You are not fighting me; you are fighting God. ...

There it is, in a simple two sentence paragraph.

Gadfly truly believes that he is speaking for God. Notice that he is not simply claiming the moral high ground (which he does in the first sentence). With the second sentence, he states that God is (in absentia) fighting through the Gadfly.

 

[gnostic]

Gadfly truly believes that he is speaking for God. Notice that he is not simply claiming the moral high ground (which he does in the first sentence). With the second sentence, he states that God is (in absentia) fighting through the Gadfly.

I think Bush felt and believed in the same thing when he sent troops to invade Iraq.

 

[crystalonyx]

I think Bush felt and believed in the same thing when he sent troops to invade Iraq.

I think it was more his "leave no corrupt CEO behind" moral philosophy.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think Bush felt and believed in the same thing when he sent troops to invade Iraq.

And that is certainly working out well for all of us. Well, at least those of us that own stock in the oil companies ...

I think it was more his "leave no corrupt CEO behind" moral philosophy.

A fine interpretation, Crystal. Naturally, W wants all of the good patriots to do well.

As an aside, the working definition of a "good patriot" in the White House is anyone that helps them maintain power.

 

[McBell]

You can not show me where I am wrong.

Post #428
If you would have bothered paying attention, I already said as much.

 

[Magic Man]

Post #428
If you would have bothered paying attention, I already said as much.

I think you misunderstood him. What he meant was that you cannot show him where he's wrong because he refuses to see it. You can put it in front of him, but he still won't see it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hmmm. I wonder what planet this guy lives on.

Like the rest of us, Gnostic lives on earth.

It would appear that it is a select few that delude themselves into thinking that they live in the clouds, seated at the right hand of God.

 

[Fluffy]

For one thing, from what I see in RF, almost all their questions are thinly disguised statements meant to ridicule religion and religious beliefs.

I believe religion to be valuable and useful. I think ridicule is wrong. I think that if you believe that ridicule is wrong, you should re-evaluate the way you speak to members on RF even if they are ridiculing you.

It is easy for them to accept biological evolution and diversification as a fact of nature, but are confused by the evolution and diversification of religion.

Some atheists are more sophisticated, but they generally seem to think all religions are alike. For some reason, it is easy for them to accept biological evolution and diversification as a fact of nature, but are confused by the evolution and diversification of religion. They understand calculus existing alongside basic math, but are confounded by high religion existing alongside low.

I believe that religions are diverse and complex. I believe that different religions have different benefits and problems. I know little about the evolution of religions but think that it is an interesting topic that should be explored more.

None that I’ve seen are consistent in their thinking. They criticize the “God in the gaps,” but “chance in the gaps” is okay.

I do criticise "God in the gaps" because I believe that the argument devalues religion when religion has a greater value than that. "chance in the gaps" on the other hand, does nothing to chance because chance has no value.

They claim to look for truth, but avoid considering the new and unfamiliar.

As a philosopher, I'm always interested in the new and unfamiliar. I enjoy keeping an open mind and investigating positions that disagree with my own. Generally, I am fluid in my beliefs and they change quite rapidly.

“I don’t know” is an acceptable answer for them, but don’t understand that the first rational thought is impossible without a conceptual frame in which to think— and such a frame assumes a basic understanding even if it goes unacknowledged.

I do think that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer but I also understand and agree that all rational thought is seated in a framework of unsupported assumptions.

“Chance” is sufficient explanation for the universe because anything that can happen will happen given enough time. But if anything that can happen will happen, how can they rule out God? Time came into existence with universe, and with it, non-locality and consciousness. They may be smart, but they can’t add 2 + 2. (This doesn’t surprise me. I had a neighbor that had several PhD’s in computer science and I was interviewed by the FBI several times as part of a security check, but be didn’t know how to change the oil in his car.)

I do not rule out God. I just believe that we have no evidence of God. God's existence is therefore, as far as I know, irrelevant to my life.

They claim they, too, can be "spiritual," but think of spirit as sentiment rather than a "vital or animating" principle.

Spirit is definitely more than sentiment but I don't know what you mean by "vital or animating". I might very well agree with you, however.

Worst of all, they think skepticism is a discoverer of truth.

Yup you got me on the last one. I do think this.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think you misunderstood him. What he meant was that you cannot show him where he's wrong because he refuses to see it. You can put it in front of him, but he still won't see it.

There you go again, using that atheistic logic.

 

[McBell]

Open your mind up to the truth. There were plenty of sinners who were not atheist but atheist were in a special category in Christ's time. The Bible refers to atheist as fools. Christ died for the sinners who are saved by believing on Him; but atheist who do not believe in God, according to the Bible, can not be saved.No, Christ did not waste his time on those who could not be saved. Shocking is it not to know you can not be saved unless of course you change your mind and believe. But, that does not often happen with atheist.

Where is this vile poison stuff come from? Is that more atheistic logic? If telling you how to be saved is vile poisoning, I am guilty. And what do you care? you are not going to listen to me.

Open my mind to the truth?
Good lord man, you have no idea what you are talking about!
You are much likened to Fish-Hunter in that the more you reveal of your God, the better I feel about not wanting anything to do with him.


Interesting how you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist.
Ask anyone who has actually paid any attention to my posts.
I am not an atheist.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Good lord man, you have no idea what you are talking about!

Well - you have to give him credit - he hasn't allowed that to slow him down any.

 

[McBell]

Most people have the sense not to make an issue of non sequiturs. But, hey. I'm dealing with atheists here.

So I guess you are STILL not going to answer the question.

There it is, in a simple two sentence paragraph.

Gadfly truly believes that he is speaking for God. Notice that he is not simply claiming the moral high ground (which he does in the first sentence). With the second sentence, he states that God is (in absentia) fighting through the Gadfly.

And he has to ask of what vile poison I speak...

I think you misunderstood him. What he meant was that you cannot show him where he's wrong because he refuses to see it. You can put it in front of him, but he still won't see it.

Thats what I said in the referred to post:

I have to agree.
They let nothing get in the way of their beliefs.
Not hail, nor rain, nor snow, nor sleet, nor truth, nor facts....

 

[McBell]

Well - you have to give him credit - he hasn't allowed that to slow him down any.

I gave that credit to both Gadfly and Rolling Stone back with post #428

 

[DallasApple]

Open my mind to the truth?
Good lord man, you have no idea what you are talking about!
You are much likened to Fish-Hunter in that the more you reveal of your God, the better I feel about not wanting anything to do with him.


Interesting how you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist.
Ask anyone who has actually paid any attention to my posts.
I am not an atheist.

I've paid "closer" atttention to your post..And you are not an athiest..

Love

Dallas

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I believe religion to be valuable and useful. I think ridicule is wrong. I think that if you believe that ridicule is wrong, you should re-evaluate the way you speak to members on RF even if they are ridiculing you.

Finally, someone intelligent. We often disagree, Fluffy, but I can always count on you for intelligence.

I believe that religions are diverse and complex. I believe that different religions have different benefits and problems. I know little about the evolution of religions but think that it is an interesting topic that should be explored more.

I do criticise "God in the gaps" because I believe that the argument devalues religion when religion has a greater value than that. "chance in the gaps" on the other hand, does nothing to chance because chance has no value.

No disagreement here. It's when "chance" is is used as an explanation that it plays the same role as God in the gaps--and I've seen it used that way many, many times by the same people who criticize "god in the gaps.

As a philosopher, I'm always interested in the new and unfamiliar. I enjoy keeping an open mind and investigating positions that disagree with my own. Generally, I am fluid in my beliefs and they change quite rapidly.

Cool. I find my own beliefs continually evolving. No one is more critical of my conception of God than me.

I do think that "I don't know" is an acceptable answer but I also understand and agree that all rational thought is seated in a framework of unsupported assumptions. I do not rule out God. I just believe that we have no evidence of God. God's existence is therefore, as far as I know, irrelevant to my life.

I don't claim there is evidence apart from personal experience. However, that doesn't necessarily make belief unreasonable. The demand for evidence is irrelevant in decisions which are forced upon us in which in which there is none one way or the other. How we place our bets (as in Pascal's wager) determines the course of our investigations--and not placing any bets (agnosticism) is effectively placing the same bet as the atheist. For the tools must be adequate to the task and we must choose to develop them, and the only reason to do that is to first believe there is something more to life, something deeper, than what are physical senses tell us.

This last point goes to the difference between "truth" and "fact."

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Finally, someone intelligent. We often disagree, Fluffy, but I can always count on you for intelligence.

You mean that all I had to do was agree with you, and I would have acheived the status of "Intelligent"? Never saw that one coming.

It's when "chance" is is used as an explanation that it plays the same role as God in the gaps--and I've seen it used that way many, many times by the same people who criticize "god in the gaps.

I've seen you say this several times. Can you give me an example of when "chance" is cited to fill in the gaps in either atheism or evolution?

No one is more critical of my conception of God than me.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions, if I were you.

I don't claim there is evidence apart from personal experience. However, that doesn't necessarily make belief unreasonable.

Yes, it does.
Belief in something (anything) with no supporting evidence is "faith". It (faith) is NOT based on reason or rational thought.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't claim there is evidence apart from personal experience. However, that doesn't necessarily make belief unreasonable.

Yes, it does.
Belief in something (anything) with no supporting evidence is "faith". It (faith) is NOT based on reason or rational thought.

See what I mean, Fluffy?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

My dear VOR, please read what I said. I didn't say, "No supporting evidence" period, end of statement.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

My dear VOR, please read what I said. I didn't say, "No supporting evidence" period, end of statement.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have experienced God firsthand?

I have no doubt that there are people out there that honestly believe that God speaks to them while they are staring at their pancakes, or that they see Jesus in the markings on the side of a cow.

Is that the type of evidence you have?