Atheist, are you one??

[Faceman675]

Addressing common misconceptions...
OK I'm sure I'll be called a smart Alec for pointing out these errors but that's why we discussing the 'God' question isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
Provide the board with your evidence that there is no God.

OK... just as soon as you provide us with proof there's no Loch Ness Monster. You could do that too I take it Faceman? Well...?Try Following the thread. It was you who claimed to have evidence that no God exists. Try to keep up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
The Thomas Aquinas quote"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible" really does sum it up.
Well this is simply a contender for the biggest lie ever told. - Why the heck would we want to deny a plausible proposition anyway? To 'sin'? But if we could know there were any gods we would believe or at least think the idea is possible but considering there's absolutely no good reason to believe we do not. Please give us any good reason better than 'You can't prove there's no god!' (or Monster) & we might!
Talk about incomprehensible word salad. The one thing that makes any sense is that you believe the Thomas Aquinas quote to be a big lie. This maybe one of the ultimate truisms ever spoken and it does not support either side in the debate of whether God exists or not. If you think it is an attack on atheism try reading it again. BTW this quote, as far as I can tell, was first used in this thread by an atheist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
We can talk past each other till Hell freezes over and neither of us would make a dent in the others beliefs.
Again disbelief in gods isn't a belief is it? It's disbelief! Is health a disease or a lack of one?
Hell yes it is a belief. Your just playing word games, trying to deflect from the fact that you believe there is no God but have no way to prove it and because of that atheism is a belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
With that said the whole exercise of this thread is pointless, but since I don't ridicule atheists the way atheists insist on belittling people of faith, I will try to make my point on a personal level.
Look this thread isn't about you it's about weak arguments. If you decide to take that personally that's your funeral.
If I were to say being an atheist requires a low, childish intellect and is no different than believing in fairy-tales. Furthermore the only way one could possibly be an atheist is to be tripping on acid. As an atheist you would not be offended? Really? Try making your point without insulting believers. Thats the truly weak argument in this thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
I am a Christian. I have never tried in any fashion to force my beliefs on anyone.
Pleased to hear it. You are off the hook then. Unbelievers are less forgiving of people who tell others (especially young children) that they could burn & burn forever when they even question or doubt baseless religious claims.
Yet you still belittle my beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
I have never hurt or caused anyone to be hurt because of my beliefs.
That's because you don't do what your bible states e.g. Kill homosexuals or keep slaves. That's a good thing! Well done for ignoring it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
Lets play what if.
OK...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
What if you are right and there is no God?
1) I have deluded myself my entire life, but what does that mean?
a) My "delusions" have led me to live a better life.
b) My "delusions" have led me to be a kinder more compassionate person.

a) You cannot know you wouldn't have been a better person than you are today either. You can only guess this.
Wrong! My nature is to be very very selfish, I can say without any doubt that my Christianity has made me a much better person. If you knew me you would know that to be true but you just make ASSumptions about someone you don't know
b) Only by cherry picking good bits from the bible & ignoring all the worst.
The UK only abolished slavery in 1833 and the US did so about 30 years later. Things change. Having read the Bible one can't help but notice the difference between the Old and New Testaments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
c) My "delusions" have given solace in times of loss.
d) My "delusions" have given my strength to fight my way out of more than one bout of depression.

c) OK pleased to hear it however I'd say gaining solace from human beings trumps talking to the wall.
There you go again. Now you seem to be comparing prayer to talking to a wall. Are you even aware that you are doing that? Probably not because only a person completely self absorbed and lacking any self awareness could possibly be an atheist. (I Don't believe that, just trying to give you a taste of what you and the rest of the atheists have been dishing out.)
d) I'm pleased to hear it -no harm in giving yourself a pep-talk instead of one to a god though is there? Even an atheist can do that.
And again, is it possible to be any more condescending?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
What if I am right and there is a God?
1) I spend eternity in Paradise.
2) You spend eternity burning in Hell.
1) Not necessarily. What evidence do you have that some god tests us for rejecting faith claims? You might be punished for believing evidence free claims & therefore...
WOW! What part of What If don't you understand? Just couldn't pass up a chance to make an " evidence free" proclamation

2) He gives the theists eternal paradise instead!
(OK I haven't got a shred of good evidence for this idea but neither do you for yours either so they are equally likely! i.e. Not very!!! )
Again is it the What or the If you don't get?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
Why do atheists feel an need to insult people of faith?
Theists tend to interpret 'I don't believe you' as 'You are X or Y or Z'.
NO NO NO That is so dishonest. I don't give shit if you don't believe me or believe as I do. I do care when you compare my beliefs to believing in fairytales. Do you not see the difference.
It's just playing the hurt feelings card when there's no defense for bad ideas. For all I know you are a really wonderful person however your arguments are largely invalid as I've pointed out.
WTF You have made 0points except that you believe only people of low intelligence could possibly believe in a God.
If your faith really makes you a better person Please Keep It !
How gracious of you. (sarcasm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faceman675 View Post
Maybe despite all the claims of certainty you have doubt and therefor a need to build up your beliefs?
How is saying 'I don't believe you' a claim or a belief for that matter???
How many time do I have to say I don't care how or what you believe or whether you believe me or not

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

Sounds to me (I'm not a mod) like a bit of a transatlantic culture/language clash. In Britain (and some of the mods in question are from there) the thing that is really frowned upon in "polite society" is the use of swear words, and the term "offensive language" is usually being equated with just that. Saying essentially the same thing in a nicely dressed up way may be just as offensive, but it is not classified as that over here. Disclaimer: that's my interpretation, and I'm just a German expat.

I was not aware that "Teabagger" had a sexual connotation - I had to google it, the term is not commonly used in the UK. I thought it was just a harmless nickname. (Why that sexual connotation would be pejorative, especially on this forum of all places, is another baffling matter.)

So are you saying if I called you an idiot that would be "polite" and an acceptable practice on this board but calling you an asshole would not be "polite" and therefor unacceptable? Leave it to the English to screw up the English language That would mean Democrap = but Dumbocrat =
The Americans and The English: Two peoples separated by a common language

As for the Teabagger thing thinking now you maybe right about the transatlantic culture/language clash thing. As for why it is a pejorative that would require my explaining the mind of the American liberal/leftist and since I don't hold a degree in abnormal psyche I doubt I could explain it (just practicing my polite insults, how was that?).

[Wendigo]

As an Atheist, I do not believe in any divine mega being(s), I need no proof other, I do view believers differently. Faceman you may view all atheists as a humongous mass of Hell fodder and fair enough if that is what your slant on your faith is but if anyone thinks that they have a very limited and blinkered view.
As noted by chocmushroom an Atheist does not believe in any God(s), your faith I guess leads you to believe there is only one God therefore you deny all other Gods so as far as those religions are concerned you are an unbeliever.

"Even if you did direct those attacks at specific groups of believers it would still be an attack on all believers." that is totally immature nonsense despite what you think. Yes I do believe Young Earth Creationists are bonkers as are a few other sects but I have plenty friends who are Christians of many types including some Jehovah's Witnesses, they know what I believe and don't try to force their views on me and we get along fine. I view them differently to the Fire and Brimstone rabble who are the dregs at the bottom of the religion barrel; the snot on God's handkerchief.

NO NO NO That is so dishonest. I don't give shit if you don't believe me or believe as I do. I do care when you compare my beliefs to believing in fairytales. Do you not see the difference.

There may be the odd leg being pulled by atheists yes we may compare God to a Mermaid, Fairies or the Loch Ness Monster none of which actually exist but the real venom comes from those who class themselves as religious with all that Hell and damnation bollox. I believe (as I have said here many times) that Gods are human constructs not vice versa, they were created to explain things like The Sun, Moon, Fire, Water, Thunder, War, Love etc all ancient pantheistic beliefs have similar Gods as they sought answers for the same questions. There is no difference Gods were created by humanity, they are as real as the tales by The Brothers Grimm. If they help you lead a better life then fine, I manage to lead a reasonably decent life by my own set of beliefs with no need for an invisible crutch.

As Gods go the Christian God is a late chart entry but even he refers to himself in the plural in Genesis, slip of the holy tongue? "Let us make man in our image" - "let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other" "Behold, the man is become as one of us" Now Christians have used all manner of chicanery to try and explain this but they also say the Bible is the true word of God so why not accept it as fact and that there is no ONE God.

[Mal Hombre]

Christianity stopped being a monotheistic religion long ago,There's God the Father,Jesus,Their invisible friend The Holy Spirit,The Virgin Mary,Little Baby Jesus and more saints that You could shake a stick at.s for the Holy Trinity being three in one,They all appear together and separately in one place at the Transfiguration.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

a) You cannot know you wouldn't have been a better person than you are today either. You can only guess this.
Wrong! My nature is to be very very selfish, I can say without any doubt that my Christianity has made me a much better person. If you knew me you would know that to be true but you just make ASSumptions about someone you don't know

How many time do I have to say I don't care how or what you believe or whether you believe me or not

Could have fooled me Faceman

If we are talking about faith then it seems to me many Christians especially in the USA have very little faith in human nature, in that they believe you can't have a civilised society or the people leading it without religion.

I believe my nature and most of those I know not to be selfish, or maybe it's just the way your parents nurture you. I don't see a Christian country like the USA as being any less selfish than the largely non-believing European countries. Listening to the Bible thumping Republicans it's quite the reverse if anything.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

So are you saying if I called you an idiot that would be "polite" and an acceptable practice on this board but calling you an asshole would not be "polite" and therefor unacceptable?

In a nutshell, yes - though in many contexts the "dressing up" is required to be more subtle, e.g. in parliament. But anyway, "arsehole" (to use what I have let to believe is the correct spelling) is just a plain insult, with no further connotations, whilst "idiot" specifically comments on deficiencies of a certain kind.

BTW I did not mean the word "polite" literally, I used the phrase "polite society" - this is indicating a "class context" in the UK. In essence, the middle class is priding itself of conducting all its condescending without the use of swear words. By resorting to swearing, you leave the club, as you prove yourself ill-mannered, hence ill-educated, if not ill-bred. Another word with a difficult-to-guess class connotation is "professional", especially its negation "unprofessional".

Leave it to the English to screw up the English language That would mean Democrap = but Dumbocrat =

I think, "Dumbocrat" would be an ill-advised choice of insult for members of the Democratic Party, as the "-crat" part just means "to rule", Dumbo is the name of a cartoon elephant, and the elephant is associated with the Republican Party.

That little problem aside, the word "Dumbocrat" would still be an insult of the "idiot" kind, and thus deemed objectionable in some contexts. If you are looking for an insult members of the Democratic Party have little ground to object to, I suggest "Donkey".

As for the Teabagger thing thinking now you maybe right about the transatlantic culture/language clash thing. As for why it is a pejorative that would require my explaining the mind of the American liberal/leftist and
since I don't hold a degree in abnormal psyche I doubt I could explain it (just practicing my polite insults, how was that?).

That was better, you're getting there. Regarding the "Teabagger" insult, I was wondering why its sexual connotation was supposed to be pejorative - surely this is apolitical? I realise the "liberal/leftist" are using the word as a pejorative term, but my understanding was that that aspect was purely political, in the same way people of the Tea Party persuasion use "liberal" as a pejorative term.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Christianity stopped being a monotheistic religion long ago,There's God the Father,Jesus,Their invisible friend The Holy Spirit,The Virgin Mary,Little Baby Jesus and more saints that You could shake a stick at.s for the Holy Trinity being three in one,They all appear together and separately in one place at the Transfiguration.

Oh Mal, once you bring the Trinity into it, let alone the saints, the theological discussion gets so fucked up that even Thomas Aquinas found it to be hard work. This is one of the reasons why I don't let myself get too deeply fixated on the Haynes Manual approach to religion and concentrate on the ethical principles which make it possible for disparate groups of people to share the same land peacefully. If this means I have to go downstairs and shovel coal for refusing to burn witches, I will go and I will shovel coal and I will flick the vees at the authorities while I do it.

In the same vein, I commented in an earlier post that arrogance lies not in what we believe but in how we behave. I honestly and strongly believe that in the end we will be weighed in the scales on the basis of how we conducted ourselves towards other people. One of the measures will be whether we were considerate when addressing others with whom we disagree in a discussion. Perjorative words to belittle others are rude and unfriendly: this is why I do not react well to words such as "Republicon" or "Libtard". For that matter, it is wrong (and against VEF rules) for another member to directly say to me: "Scoundrel; you are an idiot"; not even when it is true. Not all things which are true are lawful to be uttered.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Science is about how and religion is about why, and we should not mix these questions up.

They’re incompatible, because they both compete to find truths about the universe. There are some fundamental truths about the universe that believers have to accept in order to be religious. Many Muslims see the Koran as literally true. To question any of that is to bring a death sentence on yourself. The reason why people are so concerned with harmonizing science and religion, as opposed to, say, science and architecture, or science and baseball, is because science and religion are competitors in the field of esoteric truths about the world.

Science has an exquisitely refined series of methods honed over 500 years to find out what’s real and what’s false. Richard Feynman gave the best definition of science I ever heard, “It’s a way to keep you from fooling yourself, because you’re the easiest person to fool.” Religion doesn’t have a methodology to weed out what’s false. In fact, it’s a way of fooling yourself. They have authority, revelation, dogma, and indoctrination as their methods and no way of proving their tenets false.

[pharoahegypt]

I've always considered myself to be an Atheist; though I've tried various churches over my lifetime. While in Scouts & Cubs I was expected to attend the usual CofE churches as well as towards the end both a Catholic & Protestant church as groups merged and moved.

Since then I only ever went into a church for the usual reasons of family births, marriages, or deaths; with the exception some eight years back where I tried one of the more modern church groups where there was lots of singing, but with a rock band singing christian tinged lyrical songs, and then some mad man (pastor) asking the congregation to act like those mad American churchgoers before he would lay his hands on them and they'd all fall back and lie on the floor with crazy smiles on their faces. I got out of that one fairly early...lol.

All that said, you would think I also laugh at the idea of reincarnation too; but things have also happened in my life where I cannot rule that idea out; or wonder even more about the various sights and feelings I've also felt that must be from supposedly dead people.... If there are no dead people out there, then who or what did i see or feel those times..? Or perhaps the fact that are dead people out there in the ether bears no direct connection to reincarnation...?? Any thoughts on this....??

Just a couple of samples of experiences from the 'other world'....
1. While working in a mens hostel that was once a nunnery back in its distant past, I was alone in a disused cellar room fetching some cleaning supplies, only to spot a football rolling across the floor. At first I shrugged and put it down to wind coming in through some broken window or pipework; but then the ball stopped, and then rolled in the other direction until it then just stopped again, no obstacles or reason to just stop being obvious. As it then began to roll again I bottled it and ran.
2. While working in a bathroom at the same place, leaning over to clean out the bath I saw a shadow behind me, and told the person to wait a second, but as I turned, though the shadow was still there, no person was. but then the shadow moved out the bathroom as if a person was attached to it.
3; but this one told to me by a very white faced workman who poo-poohed my ghost warnings; he'd been walking across the back yard just as it was getting dark, cut through the by then open cellar room that was being turned into more rooms, and then back into the middle yard, only to be confronted by a long line of ghostly shapes dressed in old nun dresses and habits, walking across his path towards the original kitchen dining room. he'd paused in fear, let them all pass, and then legged it up to the sanctuary; as he saw it; if the reception desk where I was then stood.

Call me a fool; but I know what I saw; and also his face after what he says he saw...!

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Science has an exquisitely refined series of methods honed over 500 years to find out what’s real and what’s false. Richard Feynman gave the best definition of science I ever heard, “It’s a way to keep you from fooling yourself, because you’re the easiest person to fool.”

I would put it differently: the main ingredients of science are facts and theories. Theories are attempts to explain the world that allow us to make predictions of what would happen if we did this or that. Facts are concrete observations, which (i) provide the inspiration for a theory, by generalising facts, and provide a measure to (ii) sanity-check our theories, by observing further facts which may (or may not) contradict our theories.

So, theories cannot really be proven correct, only proven incorrect. Proving a well-established theory incorrect is extremely difficult, because the reason it is well-established is that it provided lots of accurate predictions. The only real way to do it is to come up with a rival theory whose predictions are subtly different, so that the differences can be tested. In fact, even if you provide a fact contradicting an established theory without offering a rival theory that explains it all the standard reaction by scientists is to shrug their shoulders and say "they probably made a mistake somewhere". For example, that happened when a group of scientists at CERN reported that they had measured neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. The media got very excited about this, whilst most scientists thought "someone is going to end up with a lot of egg on their face pretty soon" - which is precisely what happened.

Consequently, science has not really such a concept as a "true theory" (notion of scientific truth) - although this might exist it is hard to distinguish from theories which are nearly true. Disbelieving an established theory because "you don't like it" does not cut it in science though, you need to rationalise your disbelief. Einstein did not like Quantum Theory, but could not turn his emotion into a rational argument. World famous physicist or not, just a mere dislike does not cut it in science, so QT is here to stay - until someone comes up with something better.