Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
StormanNorman

Don't Bring An Atheist Home To Mom & Dad

Recommended Posts

If it is as you say (and I agree that it is) then you would not have to declare or defend yourself as an atheist and you would not have to use the divisive term "us" as In in "us vs. them" implying that you are aligned with others (not including "theists") like some sort of super human that is all knowing. To wit, you declare you know who can't exist. If you believe in the laws of cause and effect, then to create the belief that no God exists would imply that you are omnipotent.

 

It wouldn't be your alleged atheism why I wouldn't want my daughter to marrying you, it would be the arrogance that she would have to deal with in your philosophy of life eventually when she "crosses" you.

 

Just like you and I exist without causing it so God could exists without you, I or anyone else causing Him or un-causing Him. Who ever exists exists .

 

Here is something you may wish to consider. Once an effect exists there is no need for tthe cause anymore. Think about it. The cause is only "historical."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only result of my atheism is me claiming I am an atheist, well that's not much is it.

That changes the relationship between me and God, that does not define the relationship between me and a theist. Sure, some theists are as oppressive to make it an important issue in their relationship with us, but is them bringing in a third party into our relationship, not us.

 

There is nothing in atheism that defines how I should interact with the environment or with other people. If you disagree, proof it, show it.

 

If it is as you say and I agree that it is then you would not have to declare yourself an atheist and you would not have to use the divisive term implying that you are aligned with others (not including "theists") like some sort of super human that is all knowing. To wit, you declare you know who can't exist. If you believe in the laws of cause and effect, then to create the belief that no God exists would imply that you are omnipotent.

 

A. You haven't shown what I asked. You have simply stated again that you don't like the label.

B. Its omniscient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many words have similar if not the same meaning.

Youo ccontinue to infer that you have mental qualities that would indicate you are a memer of the diety when you are not. Admit it you don't know who can or can't exist in this universe and yet you contnue to expect that we "have" to accept yourr self-deception.

You are neither omnicient or omnipotent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many words have similar if not the same meaning.

 

Youo ccontinue to infer that you have mental qualities that would indicate you are a memer of the diety when you are not. Admit it you don't know who can or can't exist in this universe and yet you contnue to expect that we "have" to accept yourr self-deception.

 

You are neither omnicient or omnipotent.

So you admit omniscient and omnipotent are not the same thing?

And in order to become a mike-atheist (an atheist who believes as you think he does) you need omniscience, not omnipotence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not being reasonable. Neither of the below definitions apply to you. Additionally I would speculate you have never been into outer space let alone searching for a specific being called God.

You have exceeded your credible knowledge base with your claims of atheism. You are having illussions of grandeur.

Omniscience

 

Omniscience, mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. In particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that there is a divine being who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

Omnipotence

 

 

Omnipotence is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of whichever faith is being addressed. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence

Definitions are from the internet via Bing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so unreasonable about telling the difference between omniscience and omnipotence?

 

But mike, lets quit it. We're wasting our time. :) I will wait for Calminian or someone else to return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an absence of beliefs about God would be agnosticism. God may exist, God may not, etc. Atheism is the idea and belief God is absent. This is definitely an ideology. There are many groups that organize politically in the name of atheism. There's really no way out of it, except to adopt agnosticism. Sorry to tell you this, but you're an ideologue like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that this was an interesting and somewhat surprising article. Most Americans would not object to family members marrying someone of a different race or political persuasion. But, nearly half (49%) would object to a family member marrying an atheist.

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/24/all-in-the-family-not-for-atheists/?hpt=hp_t4

Isn't this just evolution playing itself out? Evidently some people think alleged atheists are not fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, please check the latest posts in the evidence for atheism topic.

 

Even if it would mean belief in no God, can you give me an example of a guideline or what it would mean?

 

Sorry, not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for. My only point is the atheism is a belief system that requires a certain amount of faith. Atheists tend to argue for their beliefs the way many religious individual do. And atheists tend to have strong beliefs about their rights, and the importance to keep religion out of everything.

 

The point is, we're religious creatures. it's in our blood, and it's undeniable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calminian: Sorry, not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for. My only point is the atheism is a belief system that requires a certain amount of faith.

 

You made the claim that atheism is the belief there is no God, while I believe it can be that it is the lack of a belief in God. When you see God so obviously as you probably do, you require indeed a lot of faith not to believe it. It requires faith to believe in something despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Calminian: Atheists tend to argue for their beliefs the way many religious individual do.

 

I’m sure we do; when confronted with religious dogmatism. You see it here on these forums (which are a meeting place for theists and atheists alike, in order to debate/argue about beliefs). You see it whenever you seek a conflict situation. We don’t (to my knowledge) go from door to door to ‘teach’, we don’t post ourselves on campus’s and outside schools to ‘teach’.

 

Calminian: And atheists tend to have strong beliefs about their rights, and the importance to keep religion out of everything.

 

We have the belief that you and I have equal value, that you and I are equal in a lot of aspects and that we should have the same rights. Is it a bad thing to come up for your rights? And remember, you have the same rights as I have.
About the ‘keeping religion out of everything’, if one party has the right to surpass the democratic system, what rights remain for the other? That is in essence the core of separation of church and state.

 

Calminian: The point is, we're religious creatures. it's in our blood, and it's undeniable.

 

Can you please clarify this statement?

 

Am I correct in the following understanding:

You state that:

  1. Atheists like to defend their atheism.
  2. Atheists like to defend their own rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You made the claim that atheism is the belief there is no God, while I believe it can be that it is the lack of a belief in God.

e-quiv-o-ca-tion

 

[ih-kwiv-uh-key-shuh n]

noun

 

1. the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, especially in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication.

2. an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque:

"The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations."

3. Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

Edited by Bonedigger
Deleted extraneous material from copying/pasting the entire web page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Calminian: Sorry, not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for. My only point is the atheism is a belief system that requires a certain amount of faith.

 

You made the claim that atheism is the belief there is no God, while I believe it can be that it is the lack of a belief in God. When you see God so obviously as you probably do, you require indeed a lot of faith not to believe it. It requires faith to believe in something despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Calminian: Atheists tend to argue for their beliefs the way many religious individual do.

 

I’m sure we do; when confronted with religious dogmatism. You see it here on these forums (which are a meeting place for theists and atheists alike, in order to debate/argue about beliefs). You see it whenever you seek a conflict situation. We don’t (to my knowledge) go from door to door to ‘teach’, we don’t post ourselves on campus’s and outside schools to ‘teach’.

 

Calminian: And atheists tend to have strong beliefs about their rights, and the importance to keep religion out of everything.

 

We have the belief that you and I have equal value, that you and I are equal in a lot of aspects and that we should have the same rights. Is it a bad thing to come up for your rights? And remember, you have the same rights as I have.

About the ‘keeping religion out of everything’, if one party has the right to surpass the democratic system, what rights remain for the other? That is in essence the core of separation of church and state.

 

Calminian: The point is, we're religious creatures. it's in our blood, and it's undeniable.

 

Can you please clarify this statement?

 

Am I correct in the following understanding:

You state that:

  1. Atheists like to defend their atheism.
  2. Atheists like to defend their own rights.

 

 

I'm not sure of the distinction you're making. I could also argue theism is a lack of a belief in atheism. It's a difference without a distinction.

 

And I would say the atheists do dogmatically yell at the top of their lungs about how superior their beliefs are. They do go door to door, so to speak, in that the are putting out television shows, and teaching college classes. In many ways, you (plural) are more evangelistic than most christians, and I say that to our shame. We should be pushing our beliefs in television and schools with the same intensity.

 

All men are religious. We all form and choose the beliefs which guide our lives. That's what religion is.

 

Hope that clarifies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You're the one making the logical fallacy. ;) Any claim otherwise would be arrogance on your part...
Calminian:
Theism is the base word, atheism is the negative of that. The word is about belief, not about the subject. (if you catch my meaning)
Better would be amaterialism for example.
Never have I once encountered a college teacher professing his believes in atheism. You're confusing atheism with science. Science is done by a massive amount of individuals, theists and atheists alike, and science is taught in schools. Sure it can be different from what you teach your children about the world (and that is a problem that might need to be resolved) but that doesn't mean it is atheistic propaganda.

"All men are religious. We all form and choose the beliefs which guide our lives. That's what religion is."

And yet you have been unable to provide with any guideline that atheism would provide. (Hey I can be mistaken, but to my limited knowledge, at the moment I am not aware of one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri

Funny that! This post is about discriminating against alleged atheists as if there is something wrong with that. Discrimination is to be expected when you claim a negative. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Since you "believe" you know who can't exist, a logical conclusion on my part is you are all knowing. As I have said numerous times you attribute to yourself qualities of the God you say can't exist.

 

You espouse the idea that you are on one side of a line drawn by you and then ask why would someone on the other side of the line you drew want to discriminate against you? Go figure. Divisions are caused by the barriers we erect.

 

As far as confusing science with atheism, neither one is an entity. Science is a description of our reasoning ability. It is our thinking process. Alleging atheism is the effect of your reasoning "it" into existence. Atheism is a belief you used your mind to create.

 

You "need" to ask yourself "why" you need to claim who can't exist rather than just admit you really don't know who may or may not inhabit this universe.

 

If you decide to be someone's adversary would you not expect a similar response from them? And yet a Jesus taught His followers are not to "feel" that way about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stormannorman said:

I thought that this was an interesting and somewhat surprising article. Most Americans would not object to family members marrying someone of a different race or political persuasion. But, nearly half (49%) would object to a family member marrying an atheist.

 

http://religion.blog...ists/?hpt=hp_t4

Makes sense to me. Most such people acknowledge the existence of other races as humans. Atheism is a claim that one specific being does not exist. Athism is discriminitory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for providing us with this excellent example of willful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cuckoo calls himself by his own name. Admit what we all know, you can't name the people on planet earth let alone who may or may be alive in this whole universe. You created the idea of no God just like Darwin created the hypothesis of evolution. You are a creator just like the rest of us. So what purpose does creating the idea that other beings like you and I can't exist? It can't be survival of the fittest because I can't imagine how anyone living somewhere else in the universe is in anyway in competition with you?

 

Can you explain to me why you created the idea of non existence when you exist--why you would deny the existence of anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mike:

atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You're the one making the logical fallacy. wink.png Any claim otherwise would be arrogance on your part...
Calminian:
Theism is the base word, atheism is the negative of that. The word is about belief, not about the subject. (if you catch my meaning)
Better would be amaterialism for example.
Never have I once encountered a college teacher professing his believes in atheism. You're confusing atheism with science. Science is done by a massive amount of individuals, theists and atheists alike, and science is taught in schools. Sure it can be different from what you teach your children about the world (and that is a problem that might need to be resolved) but that doesn't mean it is atheistic propaganda.

"All men are religious. We all form and choose the beliefs which guide our lives. That's what religion is."

And yet you have been unable to provide with any guideline that atheism would provide. (Hey I can be mistaken, but to my limited knowledge, at the moment I am not aware of one.)

 

 

Sorry, still don't understand the distinction you're making. Disbelief in God is the same as belief in no God. If you can show the difference, I'll listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, I’ll try to explain. Please note the definitions says disbelief or lack of belief. I’m trying to show the difference between ‘lack of belief in God’ and ‘belief in no God’.

 

I’ll try illustrate with an example. I have a deck of cards here on my desk, the top card is face up.

A. Do you believe the Ace of Spades is on top?

B. Do you believe the Ace of Spades is not on top?

C. Do you believe the Three of Hearts is on top?

D. Do you believe the Three of Hearts is not on top?

E. Do you believe both the Ace of Spades and the Three of Hearts are on top?

F. Do you believe (both the Ace of Spades and the Three of Hearts) are not on top?

 

Additionally, I repeat:

"All men are religious. We all form and choose the beliefs which guide our lives. That's what religion is."

And yet you have been unable to provide with any guideline that atheism would provide. (Hey I can be mistaken, but to my limited knowledge, at the moment I am not aware of one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I would interpret each:

 

"lack of belief in God" is passive, the absence of an acceptance of God's existence. (I once suggested to someone that "lack" implies something missing, which did not go over well...)

"belief in no God" == a conviction that the Universe is Godless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri said:

Alrighty, I’ll try to explain. Please note the definitions sayuotes disbelief or lack of belief. I’m trying to show the difference between ‘lack of belief in God’ and ‘belief in no God’.

So, say it's your opinion that there is no God (agnosticism). What I am esseentially saying is that you are contradicting yourself, since the possibility of God has to exist before you claim he does not. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion (unless you claim you know everything which would give you a major credibility problem and infer qualities of the being you say you don't think exists. Since that being "does not exist" logically you can't honestly claim any of His "major" qualities.

 

I’ll try illustrate with an example. I have a deck of cards here on my desk, the top card is face up.

 

A. Do you believe the Ace of Spades is on top?

 

B. Do you believe the Ace of Spades is not on top?

 

C. Do you believe the Three of Hearts is on top?

 

D. Do you believe the Three of Hearts is not on top?

 

E. Do you believe both the Ace of Spades and the Three of Hearts are on top?

 

F. Do you believe (both the Ace of Spades and the Three of Hearts) are not on top?

Since the cards most likely were arranged by you or you shufflled them and we are not all-knowing, the answer I give is, "I don't know without gathering more information by observation or trust (faith) in you telling what the situation is."

 

Additionally, I repeat:

"All men are religious. We all form and choose the beliefs which guide our lives. That's what religion is."

This is an excellent definition and a truism but you seem to override and contradict it.

And yet you have been unable to provide with any guideline that atheism would provide. (Hey I can be mistaken, but to my limited knowledge, at the moment I am not aware of one.)

Baloney! How about you opening your mouth to tell us your\ you "believe" (atheism is a belief all be it a negative one.

 

Since you claim you do not know sosmething we conclude you are not a know it all. By definition God could believe you exist but you, because of ignorance, would not necessarily know that He exists or does not exist. Yet, that is your claim.

 

I concede that there are plenty of things that you know that I don't know including beings such as your friends etc. We live in the privacy of our minds. Some things you think none of us would know only if you told us it and we chose to believe you.

 

In scientific reasoning, it is a good idea to use precision thinking which does not use poetic terminology (personification for example). Jesus taught against doing this. You personify atheism as if "it" controls you and you are not a being that "believes" he controls himself by using beliefs you are in control of. Beliefs are made by us and we use them to decide what to say and do. It is not the other way arround.

 

As I have learned over the years,"behavior" is indicative of belief antecedent." Belief comes before behavior. If you see someone doing something it's safe to assume they told themselves to do it. As Jesus said, "By their fruit(behavior) you will know (what they believe) them ."

 

Your claim that atheism is not a belief lacks crdibility since you use it as a guide to tell yourself and us (a behavior the effect which is preceded by a belief a cause) you don't believe there is a God or you lack a belief (itself a belief as we observe you expressing the atheism belief). To say there is no God you use a belief to do that (in your case atheism). If atheism is not a belief then what is it.

 

I and on others have given plenty examples of you playing the, "I am not saying what I am saying game." Even the scriptures claim you are without excuse in that you acknowledge the possibiity the specific being God and then tell yourself you lack belief in His possible existence. Out of your own mouth (which we observe you control) we observe you making a claim (belief) of ignorance of God's possibility.

 

Atheism is a religious statement--a belief that you believe (apparently) is credible even though it is internally illogical. Apparently the marble has not hit the hole.

 

But I have faith that you will eventually figure "it" out especially if you learn to think about your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri said:

But mike, lets quit it. We're wasting our time.

so is this your belief--a part of your "atheism" religion?-that I and even you are just an expendable metabolic unit? Not worth even time? LOL Guess you "believe" what you tell yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to know our respective definitions of a few words.

Atheist: generally, one who does not posit a God or gods;

Types:

1) those who assert that God does not exist,
2) those who assert that God is not necessary,
3) those in whom a belief in God is absent.
4) those who adduce conclusive evidence of the non-existence of God; I call them "Proofers"; These last are a sad lot,

Of course, "posit" implies that someone has been asked to account for Existence.


Agnostic: one who responds, "I don't know" when asked whether a God or gods exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that we all create our own definitions but those definitions though created by us do not create or uncreate anybody's existence. The issue is whether any of us is qualified to determine who can or can not exist.

 

The claim of atheism is made by a person of finite information. Moreover, we as individuals do not exist by definition but rather exist brcause at this pont in time we exist similar to God's claim.

 

I have proposed that Fjuri and others that allege atheism do a thought experiment to see whether they can cause anything to either exist or stop existing by definition. Since no one seems to have those powers (they have never demonstrated them0) their claims of who can or can't exist is bogus.

 

Is something wrong with my thinking. Let me know. smile.png

 

I respect those who claim they don't know whether God exists or not. That's honest. But alleging atheism goes beyond that claiming an absolute.

 

To claim what can't exist is to deny the creative process, past, present and future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms