FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What is wrong with being an atheist?





Bluedoll
Nothing. That is about it, nothing. I believe that God doesn’t condemn an atheist God tolerates them. If God didn’t tolerate then what?

Atheists are like Christians. A regular Christian will get up in the morning. He has his coffee and goes off to church. Why? Because it is Sunday. He listens to what is being said then he socializes and he goes home. It is no different than an atheist except he might go to a different kind of meeting. The Christian goes to church because his wife does and it is social outlet. Story ends. Pretty common.

So what if the atheist is a little different in that he not interested in religion. Is that so bad? Not at all.

Then you have the extremist. The overbearing Christian that wants everyone to convert to his belief. That can be offensive to some people. Now lets talk about the same kind atheist.

He preaches about religion and is very dedicated. He goes online. He does anything to prevent anyone from disrupting his activity. He is a bible-thumping dictator that demands certain protocols in his online world. His message is not one of love and peace. It is one of hate and anger. He does teach by using the bible that God is monster. Anyone that loves God is an idiot, a moron. Anyone that disputes his bible thumping activity is a spammer. He will attack anyone that is in opposition to him and attempt to abuse those that do. This is his belief, his faith in atheism.

So what is wrong with that?
Mad
nickfyoung
bluedoll
Quote:
The Christian goes to church because his wife does


I like that bit and is probably true in a lot of cases. I wouldn't worry too much about the atheists on here. They only repeat the mantras of Dawkins who is a bit of a nutter at best. He has only been married 3 times so far. You would think that greatest brain of Great Britain could at least understand the basics of relationship. Maybe he is not so smart after all.
catscratches
nickfyoung wrote:
bluedoll
They only repeat the mantras of Dawkins who is a bit of a nutter at best. He has only been married 3 times so far. You would think that greatest brain of Great Britain could at least understand the basics of relationship.
That seems like understanding the basics of relationships to me. He's obviously doing something right. I mean, that's a lot more than I've been married!
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Nothing. That is about it, nothing. I believe that God doesn’t condemn an atheist God tolerates them. If God didn’t tolerate then what?

Atheists are like Christians. A regular Christian will get up in the morning. He has his coffee and goes off to church. Why? Because it is Sunday. He listens to what is being said then he socializes and he goes home. It is no different than an atheist except he might go to a different kind of meeting. The Christian goes to church because his wife does and it is social outlet. Story ends. Pretty common.
The belief in an invisible entity by Christians, and the lack of belief in such things by atheists is the essential difference you appear to have neglected to mention?
Of course, atheists are like Christians in the sense that they are human beings and enjoy all sorts of varying human activities, but the lack of faith in gods requires a descriptive term to separate them from those who believe such things.

Quote:
So what if the atheist is a little different in that he not interested in religion. Is that so bad? Not at all.
It is pleasing that you present such a tolerant position in this post. It is sad though that many people of faith in the world are prepared to kill/hurt/discriminate people who do not believe the things they do.

Quote:
Then you have the extremist. The overbearing Christian that wants everyone to convert to his belief. That can be offensive to some people. Now lets talk about the same kind atheist.

He preaches about religion and is very dedicated. He goes online. He does anything to prevent anyone from disrupting his activity. He is a bible-thumping dictator that demands certain protocols in his online world. His message is not one of love and peace. It is one of hate and anger. He does teach by using the bible that God is monster. Anyone that loves God is an idiot, a moron. Anyone that disputes his bible thumping activity is a spammer. He will attack anyone that is in opposition to him and attempt to abuse those that do. This is his belief, his faith in atheism.

So what is wrong with that?
Mad
Robust debate is to be expected in P&R and unsupported or illogical arguments will be attacked there. I see posts which personally I would have used a perhaps more diplomatic tone, but I also see theistic arguments which have been shown to be based on nothing more than personal faith yet the believer won't give it up. That is certainly tiresome in an intelligent debate and I understand the impolite responses this often attracts.

I'm sure if a theist produced some actual evidence to support their claims of gods then it would be discussed and considered rationally in P&R, but claims based on faith alone will not.
It is the reason why we have this nice little Faith forum to discuss anything one likes which is based on feelings alone.
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Robust debate is to be expected in P&R and unsupported or illogical arguments will be attacked there. I see posts which personally I would have used a perhaps more diplomatic tone, but I also see theistic arguments which have been shown to be based on nothing more than personal faith yet the believer won't give it up. That is certainly tiresome in an intelligent debate and I understand the impolite responses this often attracts.


Atheists look for claims and consider everything not understood by them as illogical. Christians can have a logical understanding of spirtual subjects even though it may not be logical to an atheist.

watersoul wrote:
I'm sure if a theist produced some actual evidence to support their claims of gods then it would be discussed and considered rationally in P&R, but claims based on faith alone will not.


Atheists have faith in atheism and their faith are on opposite beliefs of that of a Christian. Many Christians do not base their belief on faith alone though faith is something to be treasured.

watersoul wrote:
It is pleasing that you present such a tolerant position in this post. It is sad though that many people of faith in the world are prepared to kill/hurt/discriminate people who do not believe the things they do.


Abuse and hurt exist to various degrees. Certainly, many humans find reason to engage in hostility even war, I don’t disagree with that. Many people of faith are also peaceful as are many atheists.

Atheists believe that God does not exist. Christians believe in God.
deanhills
I came across this quote by Nietzsche last night that I thought was right on for this discussion:

Quote:
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. — Friedrich Nietzsche


I think all of these discussions have a kind of futility in them, as the one party comes from a position of faith based on no real evidence as how could one find evidence for faith? And the other party comes from a position of evidence only. How could they possibly agree on anything?

I have to admit too, I've got a greater understanding for an atheist being completely disinterested in engaging in any of these discussions. If they've come to their own conclusion there is no God, and that religion is senseless, why engage those who do, unless they're still battling with their own demons or trying to get those of religion to become "enlightened"? And then it's no longer atheism but an active pursuit to rid those with religious beliefs of their delusions? And of course the other way round too when the religious are embarking on a campaign to rid atheists of their "delusions". Religion and anti-religion, still is a religion. Not engaging in talks like these because the person is genuinely disinterested, to me makes more sense for the definition of atheism:

Quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

https://www.google.com/#q=atheism

If the person loves to engage religion, or has a great interest in it, there has to be something of the religious in that person. The louder they protest against religion, the more religious anti-religious they are.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Atheists look for claims and consider everything not understood by them as illogical. Christians can have a logical understanding of spirtual subjects even though it may not be logical to an atheist.
In the spirit of the rules of the Faith forum I shall just say that people who do not belive in gods often have a different perspective of what 'logic' really is.

Quote:
Atheists have faith in atheism
Interesting, I have personally never met anyone who has faith in the lack of belief in anything, gods included. I would be interested to know how my own atheist position - 'I have come across no evidence anywhere in my life to support a belief in any gods, so I remain as someone open to the possibility, but do not believe' - could be taken to be a faith in anything? Perhaps you mean 'some' atheists? My position is atheist and requires no faith, just a lack of evidence to convince me of anything supernatural. I am of course able to change my position if there were evidence to support gods, but again that would require no faith in anything, just logic, reasoning, and critical thinking.

Quote:
Atheists believe that God does not exist. Christians believe in God.

I am atheist and do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence, I do not believe that any gods do not exist, just that there is no evidence I am aware of to support such a view that they do. No faith required there either.
Believing something does not exist is different to not believing something does.
Again perhaps you mean 'some' atheists?

*Edit*
Perhaps you would be willing to share your process, experiences or reasons for believing in a god, who knows, maybe they could help me find this loving spirit you speak so often about?
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Believing something does not exist is different to not believing something does.
I don’t agree, in order to not believe there needs to be some information that defines reasonable doubt. The two, belief in non-existence and not believing in an existence are equivalent.

I think atheism and please notice that I said think, not feel, not imagine but think that atheism distorts reason. That does not make an atheist an idiot or a moron. No, I don’t want to be so rude as to be like an abusive atheist who will not listen to reason.

watersoul wrote:
Perhaps you would be willing to share your process, experiences or reasons for believing in a god, who knows, maybe they could help me find this loving spirit you speak so often about?
This is what do feel. I don’t believe you and this means personally. You are asking for something, not requesting for help but asking for what? I think you are looking for arguments. You do want something substantial to turn this thread into an atheist/Christian debate. This topic is about atheism.

If you were sincere, you would be asking to understand your spirituality because you have a desire to find a loving spirit. You would be asking for a “conversion” of sorts from the study of atheism to a study of your personal spirtuality and to achieve that would be willing to try something different than what you will get from atheism.

Sorry, but I don’t feel you are asking for help to find...
Bluedoll
There is insufficient data for absolute proof on many things that I am sure can be thought of? Everyone in this world at some point in order to move forward has to take a leap of faith. It would be impossible to function if someone did not have even a little faith in something that is not easily definable or render precisely? Faith is not merely a word that defines religious understanding but it encompasses many aspects of a person’s life. The same applies to logic.

Defining logic is a controversial matter. If you want to consider ‘logic’ only to be a formal discipline, then that definition will tell us how we ought to reason. Formal methods are great for things like modern scientific study but not for everything specially our spirituality.

Also, if you look at the origin of the word for logic that is logos then we might come to the conclusion that logic can be understood to also mean reason or discourse. Discourse alone if reasonable is just that.

I agree that not all discourse is reasonable. I think it is rude, ignorant, and unproductive and down right hateful to say that Christians are morons, stupid or incapable of making logical decisions. Yet this is what I read quite often in the frihost forum from atheist postings, but what is wrong with that?

deanhills wrote:
Religion and anti-religion, still is a religion. Not engaging in talks like these because the person is genuinely disinterested, to me makes more sense for the definition of atheism:
The question might be is atheism so easily defined or is it also controversial?

Just two random searches on the internet bring different definitions of atheism. I am sure there are more.
Quote:

The word atheism comes from the negative a which means ‘no,’ and theos which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god. - http://carm.org/what-is-atheism


Quote:
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." - http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Believing something does not exist is different to not believing something does.
I don’t agree, in order to not believe there needs to be some information that defines reasonable doubt. The two, belief in non-existence and not believing in an existence are equivalent.
So are you saying you disagree with my clear and concise explanation of my own personal position that I do not believe that there are no gods, and do not believe there are?
watersoul wrote:
I have come across no evidence anywhere in my life to support a belief in any gods, so I remain as someone open to the possibility, but do not believe


I am interested in this solely because my lack of belief can only put me into the atheist category and you are making a wild generalisation that 'atheists have faith' and 'atheists believe there are no gods'.
I have given you my honest answer and yet you persist. Are you then accusing me personally of being untruthful?

If you are making assertions about 'some' atheists then that's fine, I've asked you twice previously to clarify, but if you are asserting that my well explained lack of belief is in itself a belief then you are incorrect.

I'm not really interested in the rest of your contributions here, but if you could clarify your position which essentially seems to be questioning either my honesty or my own personal understanding of what I may or may not believe, I would be grateful.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I have to admit too, I've got a greater understanding for an atheist being completely disinterested in engaging in any of these discussions. If they've come to their own conclusion there is no God, and that religion is senseless, why engage those who do, unless they're still battling with their own demons or trying to get those of religion to become "enlightened"?
I shall always engage when a theist makes wild generalisations about atheists. My lack of belief in gods puts me in the category of atheist and as such Bluedolls assertions refer to me as well.
If she alters her stance to 'some' atheists I shall walk away and leave her to it. Right now, as long as she continues to claim 'atheists' (meaning all atheists, or atheists in general) I shall continue disputing her assertions because in relation to me, personally as an atheist, she is incorrect.
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Believing something does not exist is different to not believing something does.
I don’t agree, in order to not believe there needs to be some information that defines reasonable doubt. The two, belief in non-existence and not believing in an existence are equivalent.
So are you saying you disagree with my clear and concise explanation of my own personal position that I do not believe that there are no gods, and do not believe there are?
watersoul wrote:
I have come across no evidence anywhere in my life to support a belief in any gods, so I remain as someone open to the possibility, but do not believe


I am interested in this solely because my lack of belief can only put me into the atheist category and you are making a wild generalisation that 'atheists have faith' and 'atheists believe there are no gods'.
I have given you my honest answer and yet you persist. Are you then accusing me personally of being untruthful?

If you are making assertions about 'some' atheists then that's fine, I've asked you twice previously to clarify, but if you are asserting that my well explained lack of belief is in itself a belief then you are incorrect.

I'm not really interested in the rest of your contributions here, but if you could clarify your position which essentially seems to be questioning either my honesty or my own personal understanding of what I may or may not believe, I would be grateful.
I am not merely accusing for the sake of debate. I am clearly telling you I do not trust you as a person. From the posts you have written I believe you have little or no desire to learn anything about a religious belief other than atheism. When you said you would like me to share my experiences or reasons for believing God I believe it was only to dispute these things not learn about them. When you said that they could help you find a loving spirit, I certainly do doubt your sincerity because in every post I’ve read of yours, your purpose is to put down a belief and certain do not make any attempt to learn about any belief for the purpose of you own personal understanding. So yes, I find that part untruthful and insincere because I am more inclined to believe you are a confirmed atheist and want to continue in that understanding.

What I said in the op is that a regular Christian or an atheist will act in a certain way but extremists will act in another. There are some things that all people do have in common. There are many things people, myself included can agree on but it seems atheism is not one them.

Some atheists and Christians don’t care about religious topics because they are not interested. They just go through the motions. Some people will just say they are something just to let people understand but have little interest in religious topics and that is as far as it goes. Others feel more strongly about what they call themselves. If passion does not stem from what someone believes in, where does it come from?

I am saying clearly, atheism is a set of beliefs. It is information arranged in very specific language and formats that enables ideas and thoughts to be expressed from one person to another. Of course it is a belief like anything else. You want to call something that has the ability to convince not a belief?
watersoul
I shall ignore your accusations and sidetrack comments and repeat again:

watersoul wrote:
So are you saying you disagree with my clear and concise explanation of my own personal position that I do not believe that there are no gods, and do not believe there are?
Quote:

I have come across no evidence anywhere in my life to support a belief in any gods, so I remain as someone open to the possibility, but do not believe


You made big claims about atheists having faith in atheism. I am atheist and I have explained to you that I have faith in nothing of the kind. My reasons explained (again) above.

Now without sidetracking, can you confirm that your comments relate to 'some' atheists and not all as you originally implied, because I am an example of an atheist who does not fit your over-generalised description.

If you find yourself able to actually answer that simple question I shall leave this 'stab at atheists thread' alone and you can complain as much as you like about 'some' atheists.
If you sidetrack the question I shall continue as would anyone accused of something incorrectly.
Bluedoll
Here is a “confirmation” if that is what you want to call it.
watersoul wrote:
So are you saying you disagree with my clear and concise explanation of my own personal position that I do not believe that there are no gods, and do not believe there are?
You question is sick with a lot of nots! Look if you want to argue about atheism or let it go, do it. You can do whatever you want. I’m not sidetracking a thread I created myself. Duh!

If a person does not believe in something then they do believe in something else. If they simply don’t understand then they would say that. Atheism is all about denying there is a God. When atheism says there is a God then I’ll revise my statement. That’s ok, it will be called theism instead of atheism.

I’m listening to you telling me what you think is true and what you say you can back up with “logic” or “not logic” whichever your poison when what you are really saying completely does miss the mark on understanding a religious belief... atheism, theism or otherwiseism.

It reminds me of politics. Atheism is like the opposition that confronts and disagrees with everything the government in parliament says. That is what it does because it is the opposite. At some point in time though you need to ask the opposition party just what the hell they do believe in!

Who is doing the sidestepping here? Step up to podium and tell everyone what you believe. You don’t even have to prove it, just say it.

.... [] I believe in God.
.... [] I believe God doesn’t exist.

The End
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:

.... [] I believe in God.
.... [] I believe God doesn’t exist.


I am aware of no evidence to draw me towards a belief in any gods. I therefore do not believe in such things at this present time.
I have no way to absolutely confirm that gods do not exist, so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


Fairly simple Bluedoll, your apparent and sustained desperation to brand all those without faith in gods as having an automatic faith/belief to the contrary is amusing, but then this is the faith forum so you can present any wild argument you like.
I am pleased you present it as such though, because other readers will consider your 'logic' and reach their own conclusions.

I am also pleased to present my own position in a clear manner so others can see that your claims about atheists and alleged 'faith in atheism' clearly do not apply to me.
As far as the rest of your anti atheist rant goes, I don't really care, although I enjoy the entertainment though so please carry on presenting your apparent disdain toward atheists, it helps show your true colours Wink

...see you in P&R sometime, if you can manage to keep one of your emotional and almost unhinged rants from getting spam canned lol
Afaceinthematrix
Bluedoll wrote:
. It is one of hate and anger. He does teach by using the bible that God is monster.


This is the one line of your post that I have a problem with.

Having the opinion that God is a monster is not necessarily an opinion of hate or anger. I am not a hateful or angry person; I just have a different opinion than you. It is that simple and nothing is wrong with that.

The way I see it is that the god of the Old Testament drowned the entire world in a giant flood, killed the first born CHILD of every Egyptian, killed everybody (including children) in Sodom and Gomorrah, screwed over Job, etc. To me, that seems like a monster. It is clear cut and simple. Having that opinion does not make me hateful or angry.

Other than that, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. I put my pants on one leg at a time - just like you - and I do pretty much everything else the same way. I actually went to church last week for the first time in about five years. I didn't go for any religious person; I went because my friend was preaching that week and I wanted to show support for him because he helps me in many other ways.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.

That's not atheism. If you're keeping an open mind it means you're open to both atheism and theism until proven to the contrary. For atheists there are no deities. As far as I can see their minds are pretty much made up on this.

Think this is a good discussion about the difference.

watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.

That's not atheism. If you're keeping an open mind it means you're open to both atheism and theism until proven to the contrary. For atheists there are no deities. As far as I can see their minds are pretty much made up on this.
Not you as well Dean?!
Theism = belief in gods
Atheism = no belief in gods

I could be labelled an agnostic atheist if you like but the fact that I do not hold a belief that gods exist puts me in the atheist camp.
Why are you all so desperate to get atheism described as a 'thing', a belief, or as Bluedoll strangely claims, a Faith?
I do not hold a belief in gods and my reasoned position shoots the assertion that 'atheists have faith in atheism' out of the water. Like I said, she can whinge about 'some' atheists she may know or have researched about, whatever, but she cannot label all atheists as her claims are incorrect in relation to my lack of faith.
deanhills
I was responding to what you said Watersoul. I'm quoting you direct:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


Let's be rational and logical about this. Either you believe or you don't. You said you're keeping an open mind, which means you don't have a firm opinion. If you have a firm opinion, you've got to change the above quoted passage. As you can't have it both ways. Did you check the YouTube explanation by Tyson?

What I hear you saying is:

I'm an atheist, until someone comes with evidence to the contrary.

NOT.

I don't have evidence either way, so am keeping an open mind for any possibility.

Those two are very different
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I was responding to what you said Watersoul. I'm quoting you direct:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


Let's be rational and logical about this. Either you believe or you don't. You said you're keeping an open mind, which means you don't have a firm opinion. If you have a firm opinion, you've got to change the above quoted passage. As you can't have it both ways. Did you check the YouTube explanation by Tyson?

I do not hold any belief in the existence of gods due to an apparent lack of evidence. By not having a belief in gods I default to the atheist camp and not theist as theists believe in a god.
I am unable to absolutely confirm that gods do not exist, so I am unable to assert that they do not.
My position remains atheist as I do not believe in any gods, as you already know Dean.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:

My position remains atheist as I do not believe in any gods, as you already know Dean.
Fine, then that is different. You're an atheist until proven otherwise. You don't have an open mind for both.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:

My position remains atheist as I do not believe in any gods, as you already know Dean.
Fine, then that is different. You're an atheist until proven otherwise. You don't have an open mind for both.
Dean I will look at evidence to support any claims, supernatural or otherwise.
I can't assert 'ghosts don't exist' but I don't believe in them, never imagined/felt/seen one and don't worry about such things in 'spooky scooby doo dark' places, but no-one is desperately trying to say I have 'faith' that there are no ghosts.

Why do you struggle with the most basic thing which is that an atheist position starts with a lack of belief in gods. A theistic position starts at the point one believes in god. There are extremes at either end but if people who believed in ghosts got as vocal about their beliefs they would experience the same lack of evidence issues while trying to pin me down to an asserted belief.
I will only surmise how likely a 'thing' might be, and of course I think evidence of gods is lacking, equally in all the many wildly differing religions, from history to present.

*Edit*
Again, my position remains atheist due to my being a person who does not 'believe' in any gods. Agnostic atheist if you're that desperate for a specific genus, but atheist nonetheless and I'm struggling to understand your exact and particular issues with that.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:

My position remains atheist as I do not believe in any gods, as you already know Dean.
Fine, then that is different. You're an atheist until proven otherwise. You don't have an open mind for both.
Dean I will look at evidence to support any claims, supernatural or otherwise.
I can't assert 'ghosts don't exist' but I don't believe in them, never imagined/felt/seen one and don't worry about such things in 'spooky scooby doo dark' places, but no-one is desperately trying to say I have 'faith' that there are no ghosts.

Why do you struggle with the most basic thing which is that an atheist position starts with a lack of belief in gods. A theistic position starts at the point one believes in god. There are extremes at either end but if people who believed in ghosts got as vocal about thier beliefs they would experience the same lack of evidence issues while trying to pin me down to a belief.
I will only surmise how likely a 'thing' might be, and of course I think evidence of gods is lacking, and in all the many wildly differing religions, from history to present.
I'm not struggling with anything Watersoul. I'm working with what you said. You made a statement where you said you're open to all possibilities. And yes, an atheist position is lack of belief in gods. So if you have a position of lack of belief in gods, you can't at the same time have an open mind to there being a god. I know exactly where you're coming from Watersoul, but you're wrong. You're siding with atheists in this Forum. You encore most of everything they say. So you're an atheist. And you can't be both an atheist with the possibility of believing in God if evidence is presented to you. That sounds a bit absurd doesn't it? Either you have an open mind, which is neither atheist nor theist, or you're an atheist until further evidence is presented to you to the contrary. Those two are very different.

Or like Tyson said in the YouTube show above. He is claimed by atheists for their stats, but strictly speaking he is not an "eist" of any kind. Tyson refuses to belong to any "eist" grouping. He says as soon as he does, that will restrict him in having an open mind. Now that is having an open mind for all possibilities. According to that blue statement you made and which I questioned.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:

My position remains atheist as I do not believe in any gods, as you already know Dean.
Fine, then that is different. You're an atheist until proven otherwise. You don't have an open mind for both.
Dean I will look at evidence to support any claims, supernatural or otherwise.
I can't assert 'ghosts don't exist' but I don't believe in them, never imagined/felt/seen one and don't worry about such things in 'spooky scooby doo dark' places, but no-one is desperately trying to say I have 'faith' that there are no ghosts.

Why do you struggle with the most basic thing which is that an atheist position starts with a lack of belief in gods. A theistic position starts at the point one believes in god. There are extremes at either end but if people who believed in ghosts got as vocal about thier beliefs they would experience the same lack of evidence issues while trying to pin me down to a belief.
I will only surmise how likely a 'thing' might be, and of course I think evidence of gods is lacking, and in all the many wildly differing religions, from history to present.
I'm not struggling with anything Watersoul. I'm working with what you said. You made a statement where you said you're open to all possibilities. And yes, an atheist position is lack of belief in gods. So if you have a position of lack of belief in gods, you can't at the same time have an open mind to there being a god. I know exactly where you're coming from Watersoul, but you're wrong. You're siding with atheists in this Forum. You encore most of everything they say. So you're an atheist. And you can't be both an atheist with the possibility of believing in God if evidence is presented to you. That sounds a bit absurd doesn't it? Either you have an open mind, which is neither atheist nor theist, or you're an atheist until further evidence is presented to you to the contrary. Those two are very different.

Or like Tyson said in the YouTube show above. He is claimed by atheists for their stats, but strictly speaking he is not an "eist" of any kind. Tyson refuses to belong to any "eist" grouping. He says as soon as he does, that will restrict him in having an open mind. Now that is having an open mind for all possibilities. According to that blue statement you made and which I questioned.
Oh dear Dean, I am my own investigative officer in my life, I can only rule something out or make assertions if I have evidence to back it up. It is unfortunate that you find my 'mind open to possibilities' so challenging to grasp and not be seen as reconciled in my posts over the years. It remains an atheist position though because I have seen nothing to draw me towards believing in any gods.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Oh dear Dean, I am my own investigative officer in my life, I can only rule something out or make assertions if I have evidence to back it up. It is unfortunate that you find my 'mind open to possibilities' so challenging to grasp and not be seen as reconciled in my posts over the years. It remains an atheist position though because I have seen nothing to draw me towards believing in any gods.
I don't find it challenging at all Watersoul. For me it is VERY simple and as crystal clear and elementary as it is for Tyson (have you checked out the YouTube video I posted above?). You can't have an open mind as well as associate yourself with an "eism" to the extent you are. You can stand on your head, wiggle your toes and keep on chanting atheism is the lack of belief in deities, but you still get atheists banding together, like you are at Frihost. You have the same mind set, particularly regarding discussion of religious subjects. You admire Dawkins, share the same jokes about "christian nerds". You support one another. You're INSIDE and not OUTSIDE a group of atheists who think along similar lines. You share the same standard set of reading, YouTube shows, atheist heroes, philosophers, etc. You even have a logo and symbols for atheism. You like to keep one another informed of the latest information. So while you are, you can't say you've got an open mind TO ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES. The only time when you can say that with absolute honesty and sincerity is when you say I choose not to belong to any "eism" or any specific group of thinking and therefore I am open to all possibilities.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Oh dear Dean, I am my own investigative officer in my life, I can only rule something out or make assertions if I have evidence to back it up. It is unfortunate that you find my 'mind open to possibilities' so challenging to grasp and not be seen as reconciled in my posts over the years. It remains an atheist position though because I have seen nothing to draw me towards believing in any gods.
I don't find it challenging at all Watersoul. For me it is VERY simple and as crystal clear and elementary as it is for Tyson (have you checked out the YouTube video I posted above?). You can't have an open mind as well as associate yourself with an "eism" to the extent you are. You can stand on your head, wiggle your toes and keep on chanting atheism is the lack of belief in deities, but you still get atheists banding together, like you are at Frihost. You have the same mind set, particularly regarding discussion of religious subjects. You admire Dawkins, share the same jokes about "christian nerds". You support one another. You're INSIDE and not OUTSIDE a group of atheists who think along similar lines. You share the same standard set of reading, YouTube shows, atheist heroes, philosophers, etc. You even have a logo and symbols for atheism. You like to keep one another informed of the latest information. So while you are, you can't say you've got an open mind TO ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES. The only time when you can say that with absolute honesty and sincerity is when you say I choose not to belong to any "eism" or any specific group of thinking and therefore I am open to all possibilities.
[/rant]
loremar
deanhills wrote:
I don't find it challenging at all Watersoul. For me it is VERY simple and as crystal clear and elementary as it is for Tyson (have you checked out the YouTube video I posted above?).
You've already posted that video like millions times already -_-. If you're homosexual and you aren't active in any LGBT movements, does that mean you're not homosexual? NO. Neil Tyson doesn't want to be part of the stereotypical atheists that's why he calls himself agnostic. But you know there's a lot of atheists who doesn't belong to that stereotype.

Quote:
You can stand on your head, wiggle your toes and keep on chanting atheism is the lack of belief in deities, but you still get atheists banding together, like you are at Frihost...

ocalhoun is never part of that band, mind you. And at some point he said he's not agnostic->http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-1072683.html#1072683. So by your definition, he's not atheist, then what is he?

Quote:
So while you are, you can't say you've got an open mind TO ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES. The only time when you can say that with absolute honesty and sincerity is when you say I choose not to belong to any "eism" or any specific group of thinking and therefore I am open to all possibilities.

Uhm, Neil Tyson choose agnosticism? lulz.

Actually the only person who isn't open minded is one who won't accept any evidence no matter what. You're saying one is close minded if he makes up his mind. Does making up your mind means you can't change it? People often says they won't change their mind since they've made up their mind. Well, it's not because they made up their mind, it's because they choose not to change their mind. Made up your mind means you decide to choose but not necessarily choose not to change it. Right? So yeah, choosing atheism doesn't mean you're closed minded. And it's really stupid to think otherwise, knowing that there's atheists who became theists and vice versa. How do you think they do that without an open mind?

Atheist, theist, agnostic? Like ocalhoun said:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-1083314.html#1083314 wrote:
To find out what an atheist is, you only need to see what a theist is... and then add "not that".


And agnosticism is more like an answer to the question "Can you know if god exist?" rather than "Do you believe gods exist?" Like what they say over and over again, it's a false dichotomy.
Pippo90
There is nothing morally wrong in being an atheist, but, if I look at atheists from a religious perspective, it seems reasonable to condemn it. After all, faith is the basis of religions, and it can't be that nothing happens if you remove it.
loremar
deanhills wrote:

If the person loves to engage religion, or has a great interest in it, there has to be something of the religious in that person. The louder they protest against religion, the more religious anti-religious they are.

That's stupid................................ You don't know what religious is............................ -_-
Ankhanu
loremar wrote:
Atheist, theist, agnostic? Like ocalhoun said:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-1083314.html#1083314 wrote:
To find out what an atheist is, you only need to see what a theist is... and then add "not that".


And agnosticism is more like an answer to the question "Can you know if god exist?" rather than "Do you believe gods exist?" Like what they say over and over again, it's a false dichotomy.

Man, this sentiment has been stated time and time again.
The people to whom it is spoken have made up their minds, and made up their minds never to change it... there's pretty much no point repeating it. They've generated their strawman, and they think he looks great.


Basically, I'm saying it's likely time to move on, let them wail and shake fists. There's wisdom in accepting that which you cannot change.
Bluedoll
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The way I see it is that the god of the Old Testament drowned the entire world in a giant flood, killed the first born CHILD of every Egyptian, killed everybody (including children) in Sodom and Gomorrah, screwed over Job, etc. To me, that seems like a monster. It is clear cut and simple. Having that opinion does not make me hateful or angry.
Of course I don’t agree with what you written in quotes and I’m not writing in this thread to get into some arguement with an atheist over religion. What I will point out is when someone hands me crap and I see them studying the bible, using the bible, discussing the bible and then debating these religious topics in an attempt to convince someone else they are correct, then that is “religion”. I’m not saying it is a registered worldly religion with all its trappings, but I will say it has all the makings of religious ideas and concepts.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and expressing it. It goes beyond expressing an opinion when debates and arguements take place. Words do have the power to convince which is the same as teaching someone else what you believe is true when you use them. Don’t lie to me and tell me atheism is not a belief system created by those that support it thus so.

Perhaps this fable says it best?
Quote:
Two guys were walking down the street. One guy from Nova Scotia saw some atheist dog crap on the ground.

The Nova Scotia guy said, “it certainly looks like crap.”

The other guy from Britain picked it up, sniffed and said, “it smells like crap too!”

Then the guy from Nova Scotia ate it all up and said, “it tastes like crap, too.”

The other people watching from the sidelines said, “well they didn’t step in it.”
Atheism is crap because it tells people, it is not a religion but if you talk the talk and walk the walk, it certainly is crap, if you say it isn’t.


@watersoul you questioned my true colours but what’s yours? Don’t give me your lies, lies and more lies. You don’t give a hoot about learning anything about God – you just want to argue about religion. Therefore, you are what are.

@loremare We do choose what we want to write stupid. Is that not true?
I want everyone to know I personally made this post not to define “eist” but to talk about people and what they actually do! This post here is an emotional response because for me it isn’t a God damm debate about Aunt Sally! Mad
watersoul
The way I see it is an absolutely desperate effort to find my reasoned and honest position as one which cannot be called atheist. I suspect the reasons for such an effort is that the generalised assertions about atheists having 'faith in atheism' etc, do not actually hold water when the accuser has to accept that someone such as myself is also atheist.

I'm happy to ignore anti-atheist rants when the caveat "extreme" or "some" atheists is added, but it seems that 'some' theists have a yearning to label all atheists as extremist.

The idea is as ridiculous as me saying that all Christians want to kill abortion doctors and stone homosexuals, or all catholic priests rape young boys.

If the OP wishes to add that caveat to the posts which imply an assertion to 'all' atheists, then I am happy to ignore this topic. Trying to pin my personal position down and assert I am not atheist when I hold no belief in gods is frankly child-like and deserves to be in this Faith forum, not P&R.

In the spirit of the faith sandpit though, I will not disagree that there are extreme elements of both theists and atheists, but the wild claims attributed to atheists in general (posts after the OP) will and should be defended by people such as myself who fall into the atheist camp due to the simple and easy to understand concept of 'not believing in gods'.

Again, although it will never be accepted by some folk, not believing in gods is different to believing they do not exist. My position is that I am aware of no evidence to draw me towards believing in such things, but I am unable to absolutely confirm they do not, so am unable to hold that 'belief', just a reasoned opinion that the evidence is lacking and it would appear unlikely, until/unless any evidence is presented to question such an opinion.

If I had a gun to my head and was forced through violence to give a black or white 'believe they do exist/believe they don't exist' answer, it would be 'believe they don't exist'....but there is no gun to my head so I remain with my well reasoned agnostic atheist position, which is nonetheless an atheist position due to lack of belief in any deitys.
Bluedoll
Who are you talking to the united nations?
Look, I didn’t call you an atheist you did. I am not trying to make you say anything here.
I think you said this.
Quote:
I am atheist and do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence, I do not believe that any gods do not exist, just that there is no evidence I am aware of to support such a view that they do. No faith required there either. - watersoul
You said you are an atheist. You said you do not believe... I said everyone believes in something. What I’m saying here in this thread is that we all learn and form understandings. You can call yourself anything you want but if it is an atheist then you need to accept atheism for what it is. Atheism is all about God not existing. If you agree with atheism then you believe it and what we believe we put our faith into, is what I said.

Quote:
At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God absolutely does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. - http://www.gotquestions.org/atheism.html
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Atheism is all about God not existing. If you agree with atheism then you believe it and what we believe we put our faith into, is what I said.

Yep, but atheism is about not believing in a god. Your assertion that it is about 'believing there are no gods' is incorrect.
Theism is about believing in a deity. If one does not believe in a deity then their position falls into the atheist camp. Some atheists passionately believe there are no gods, and many await evidence to support an assertion either way. Like it or not, your over generalised opinions on the meaning of the term atheism are tragically, well...just wrong.
My reasoned position is an example of an atheist outlook which can not be lumped together under your sweeping statements of atheists in general Wink
loremar
Bluedoll wrote:
....What I will point out is when someone hands me crap and I see them studying the bible, using the bible, discussing the bible and then debating these religious topics in an attempt to convince someone else they are correct, then that is “religion”. I’m not saying it is a registered worldly religion with all its trappings, but I will say it has all the makings of religious ideas and concepts.
...
Atheism is crap because it tells people, it is not a religion but if you talk the talk and walk the walk, it certainly is crap, if you say it isn’t.

You seriously don't know what religion is?

And just because you saw some atheists do all that, don't drag other atheists into it, okay. Not all atheists go out and debate. I for one was before frihost and supposedly is if I just stop checking Frihost once in a while. I don't chase everybody and preach whatever. I'm like Neil Tyson, the one in the video dean posted. I have no energy and time for it. I'm so so tired of it.
Let's say you are right. These atheists who all do that are religious. Does that really make atheism religion? Really? SOME ATHEISTS DO THAT! SOME ATHEISTS DON'T! PERIOD. So just please STOP. Atheism is not religion. Don't repeat that stupidity okay?

EDIT:I'm also certainly no atheist follower of any atheist preacher. Certainly, I don't know any atheist before frihost. I'm just saying that, just in case you'll say the other atheists are followers. I was not and certainly am not. You don't become atheist by being converted by someone. Not as far as I know.
loremar
It seems like watersoul already said what I have just said. But it seems none of it goes into Bluedoll's head. I dunno if she's deliberately ignoring it.
Bluedoll
Everyone in this world is a follower because we seek information and learn from it. What I am saying about atheism is from a religious perspective. Don't tell me about stupidity! @loremar - read and you will find that it is watersoul that is putting what you wrote here in that light. @watersoul - Where did I say all atheists are the same? Where? You are implying that I said this when in fact I didn’t say that. Are you being honest with this?

What you are saying is that if someone does not believe in God then his or her position falls into the atheist camp. Does this include children because some are not sure what they believe in either? Everyone looks for information. If you look for God you will get lots of information just as you will get information about atheism. I will agree that most hard core atheists will tell you just what you are telling me now because that is what they believe but it doesn’t make it right.

What I have stressed here is not so much static definitions of atheism but actions. And we see it all over the internet. It is consistent information about atheism. God is a monster. God does not exist. The bible says this about God or that about God and all are atheism interpretations on religious subjects. They are atheism beliefs not Christian ones.

Go ahead, keep making high sounding remarks such as, I am making sweeping statements but your statements are so not logically put together as you say but are one liners with not, not’s in them. I don’t see much happening in the logically arguments. I think my logic is actually better and that comes from a Christian who is suppose to be a mindless moron without logic in the words of elite atheist posters in an atheist dominated forum. (that means there are more active atheist’s postings on religious subjects here in frihost than Christians)

I can say I know quite a bit about atheism not because I am one but because of all my exposure as a reader online here/elsewhere and I can say truthfully it has not been a happy experience. I’ve also meant and talked to atheists in person and found this better and it too also gave me some insights into what atheism is really about. I do not agree with atheists nor do many other Christian writers when it comes to the definition of atheism by atheists and it is not logical that only atheists be allowed to define it.

Here is an example of another viewpoint other than my own of what atheism is about which is not coming from an atheist.
Quote:
Practical atheism dismisses the notion of God. It is not an outright denial of God; it is more of a subtle disregard for God. Thomas Adams said, “Atheism is the main disease of the soul.” When the Word of God declares, “God is not in all their thoughts,” it points to mankind’s gross inconsideration of God.

The pervasive atheism at work in lives of people all around us is contagious. Who would not admit how easy it is to be consumed with desires and distracted with thoughts that are not after God? Scripture states, “My people have forgotten me days without number.” Indifference toward God really means no respect for the person of God, no concern for the will of God, and disobedience to the Word of God. - http://christlifemin.org/publications/Newsletter/newsletter_2001-3/practical_atheism.htm
If atheism was simply about not believing in God it would do only that and end its pursuit. Atheism wants more. It wants superiority and if the bible is correct about the future I think will get it.
Bluedoll
loremar wrote:
It seems like watersoul already said what I have just said. But it seems none of it goes into Bluedoll's head. I dunno if she's deliberately ignoring it.
Watersoul is wrong and if you agree with him then you are wrong too. I am not an atheist so that is the reason I do not agree. I've read every word on this thread.
watersoul
loremar wrote:
It seems like watersoul already said what I have just said. But it seems none of it goes into Bluedoll's head. I dunno if she's deliberately ignoring it.
Don't worry, Dean might pop over in a while to repeat her assertions that atheism is 'believing there are no gods' as opposed to simply 'having no belief that there are gods'

...maybe if we keep explaining this for enough years then some theists may realise that there is a difference, as there is a difference between theists who just believe quietly and theists who are in your face trying to convince everyone there are gods and atheism is equally a faith based system like theirs.

As I said previously, if the OP accepts that her assertions apply to 'some' atheists then I'll ignore and dismiss this thread, but while the inference is related to atheists in general I shall continue like a dog with a bone, because the assertions do not apply to me and I hold an atheist position.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
What you are saying is that if someone does not believe in God then his or her position falls into the atheist camp.
Yes.
Quote:
Does this include children because some are not sure what they believe in either?
Yes, they are only taught to believe in gods by their community environment. It is why children born in India tend to be Hindu, children in Pakistan Muslim, and children in your country, Canada, Christian.
Which bit of that do you either not understand or disagree with. Children are born atheist until indoctrinated by theists.

I am ignoring the rest of your irrelevant points.
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
loremar wrote:
It seems like watersoul already said what I have just said. But it seems none of it goes into Bluedoll's head. I dunno if she's deliberately ignoring it.
Don't worry, Dean might pop over in a while to repeat her assertions that atheism is 'believing there are no gods' as opposed to simply 'having no belief that there are gods'

...maybe if we keep explaining this for enough years then some theists may realise that there is a difference, as there is a difference between theists who just believe quietly and theists who are in your face trying to convince everyone there are gods and atheism is equally a faith based system like theirs.

As I said previously, if the OP accepts that her assertions apply to 'some' atheists then I'll ignore and dismiss this thread, but while the inference is related to atheists in general I shall continue like a dog with a bone, because the assertions do not apply to me and I hold an atheist position.
I'm not one of the theists who is in your face nor am I saying atheism is equal to other religions. In some ways atheism acts smarter and definitely more cunningly.

It is not just about you. Your posts speak for themselves. They are not quiet.
watersoul wrote:
Children are born atheist until indoctrinated by theists
I will not side on that because I was connecting it to belief. They have to learn something before they can believe in something. Atheism is a teaching. It is not merely disbelief on that we differ.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Children are born atheist until indoctrinated by theists
I will not side on that because I was connecting it to belief. They have to learn something before they can believe in something. Atheism is a teaching. It is not merely disbelief on that we differ.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. If a child has not been taught about any gods they will of course have no belief in such things. Atheism is not a 'teaching' it is the lack of belief in gods.
Indian kids do not have any opinion/belief about the many Hindu deities until their social group teaches them about such a belief.
Pakistani kids do not have any opinion/belief about their version of the Abrahamic god until their social group teaches them about such a belief.
Canadian kids do not have any opinion/belief about their version of the Abrahamic god until their social group teaches them about such a belief.
Punjabi kids do not have any opinion/belief about their Sikh version of god until their social group teaches them about such a belief.

We are all born atheist. It is not a teaching, it is a lack of belief in the things which theists teach.

How do you not understand that?
Bluedoll
Now you simply do not want to understand what I wrote? Show me the last child that walked up to a person and said, “hi, my name is Charlie and I’m an atheist.”

You think maybe that child might learn his first word and it just comes out as atheist? But hey, he didn’t learn that he just produced it out of thin air? – Sarcasm. You need to be rational here @watersoul. Yes, I agree that religion is learned. Everything is learned. That is the point.

Get real. The real world has an atheist component to it. There is literature on atheism views. Society is even embracing it in an organized way in our modern times and meeting together as atheists. People talk about atheism subjects often and they discuss their religious subjects around atheism viewpoints. Atheism is information too.

I do understand what you are doing and why. Sorry to be the one to tell you this but atheism is bigger than you are and there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it even if you wanted to make it something different. Did you ever open your mind to the possibility that isn’t what you think it is? You could always change your religion and say, not interested or maybe I am not sure if you don’t like atheism otherwise you are pretty much stuck with it.

______________________

So you understand me, my belief in God is very strong, as is my understanding of the bible unless you think the atheist comments left in this forum about me are correct. I am not saying people of atheist conviction are stupid but will say they are very misinformed about how they understand God and wrongly quote from the bible. I am mentioning this because what I do believe about atheism is discussed in the bible. I honestly believe atheism has a very important role in the world.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Now you simply do not want to understand what I wrote? Show me the last child that walked up to a person and said, “hi, my name is Charlie and I’m an atheist.”
I could easily show you a child that has not been previously indoctrinated with a belief in gods, who when asked, would say "what is this god you speak of?".
That child would have no faith in any gods (because nobody had brainwashed it in advance) and that child would fall under the category of 'atheist' - one who does not believe in gods.

You're clutching at straws which do not exist Bluedoll. I actually love it though because it is a digital record which shows others how obstructive and illogical your arguments are.

As I've said before, make your comments about 'some' or 'extremist' atheists and I'll leave you to your topic and dismiss it as irrelevant to my life, but while you continue to lump all atheists (including myself) with your assertions I shall engage in the debate.
I fall under the atheist category and do not 'have faith in atheism' or follow imagined 'teachings of atheism' in any manner at all.
It is an imagined construct by yourself, but I say again, relate your comments to 'some' atheists and we need never have reason to continue this discussion any further.

...love how you can't even admit that a child who has not been indoctrinated by any theist teachings is atheist by default - a child who has no faith in any gods.
You do not help the theist cause, but then perhaps that is a good thing if it encourages others to think critically without the influence of emotion.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Now you simply do not want to understand what I wrote? Show me the last child that walked up to a person and said, “hi, my name is Charlie and I’m an atheist.”
Show me the last child that walked up to a person and said "hi my name is Charlie and I don't believe in pixies/fairies/ghosts/boogymen/lochness monsters/etc."
loremar
Bluedoll wrote:
I will not side on that because I was connecting it to belief. They have to learn something before they can believe in something. Atheism is a teaching. It is not merely disbelief on that we differ.

That's stupid. You grow up, learn there's a thing called god, and didn't believe in that crap. How in the hell does that become a teaching??? I don't remember anyone taught me I should be an atheist.

Quote:
Get real. The real world has an atheist component to it. There is literature on atheism views. Society is even embracing it in an organized way in our modern times and meeting together as atheists. People talk about atheism subjects often and they discuss their religious subjects around atheism viewpoints. Atheism is information too.

There was a whole lot of years I was never aware of this information you're saying and personally met no atheist in real life "EVEN NOW". So I' wasn't atheist?

Atheist should not be the only one to define atheism but why should you be the only one to define it? But please if you just have to define it, please define it so that you don't ignore other atheists who don't fall under your own stereotypes. People who don't believe in god are atheists. Not believing in god is atheism. Going far from that would just create unnecessary exclusions. So just please stop.
watersoul
loremar wrote:
I don't remember anyone taught me I should be an atheist.
Nor me, I came to my own position based on the lack of evidence to support the teachings of the theists I interacted with while developing as a sentient human.
loremar
Bluedoll wrote:
I am mentioning this because what I do believe about atheism is discussed in the bible. I honestly believe atheism has a very important role in the world.

Your atheist-hating bible sucks. It's a piece of crap. Get over it.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
The way I see it is an absolutely desperate effort to find my reasoned and honest position as one which cannot be called atheist.


*sigh* you really seem to be struggling with getting it Watersoul.

This is the point you made:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


You say you are an atheist. And that an atheist is someone who has lack of belief in a deity or deities. Now if you have a lack of belief in a deity or deities, are you open to the possibility of a deity or deities? Because that in my mind is being completely open to ALL possibilities. Not only are you not open to ALL possibilities, you're even qualifying your conditions for accepting any other possibility. It has to be scientific evidence. It can NEVER be faith or invisible.

Tyson really said it well for me. You did too at one stage. Can you remember? You took the position of agnostic in the Phil&Rel Forum when we had a discussion about it - quite a few years back. And then changed your position. I'd say your position of agnostic to me was closer to the truth. Which is being open to all possibilities until proven differently. Tyson goes a little bit further than that. He wants nothing to do with any ism. Now that I admire the most. As that to me is being completely open to all possibilities.

How could you be open to all possibilities when you're too focused on a narrow version of it. I.e. the "lack of deities" part. It seems to have become a mantra of sorts as well. Making it into something when it probably was intended to be "nothing". Creating a real "ism" movement out of it whereas there shouldn't have been a movement at all.

Surely you can see the paradox in this statement?

I am open to all possibilities. I have a lack of belief in deity or deities.
Bluedoll
loremar wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
I am mentioning this because what I do believe about atheism is discussed in the bible. I honestly believe atheism has a very important role in the world.

Your atheist-hating bible sucks. It's a piece of crap. Get over it.
I like the bible. I don't think the bible hates. I don't hate people either but I think atheism is garbage because it is lie. It does have a purpose though. I can get over all of this - thanks good advice.

watersoul wrote:
That child would have no faith in any gods (because nobody had brainwashed it in advance) and that child would fall under the category of 'atheist' - one who does not believe in gods.
Mad Sad

A child does not belong to atheism or any other religious belief because a child has not learned.

From a spiritual perspective ------------> you are writing something that is disgusting
watersoul
loremar wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
I am mentioning this because what I do believe about atheism is discussed in the bible. I honestly believe atheism has a very important role in the world.

Your atheist-hating bible sucks. It's a piece of crap. Get over it.
Don't allow her obstructive and emotional posting style to suck you into her world Loremar. Stick to the points (which she made) and she will have to give it up one day, she knows atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a faith in itself, and she hates it.

She knows this of course, but the more her lame assertions about people who lack faith are presented here, then the more other 'unbrainwashed' people will be able to draw their own rational conclusions.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
The way I see it is an absolutely desperate effort to find my reasoned and honest position as one which cannot be called atheist.


*sigh* you really seem to be struggling with getting it Watersoul.

This is the point you made:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


You say you are an atheist. And that an atheist is someone who has lack of belief in a deity or deities. Now if you have a lack of belief in a deity or deities, are you open to the possibility of a deity or deities? Because that in my mind is being completely open to ALL possibilities. Not only are you not open to ALL possibilities, you're even qualifying your conditions for accepting any other possibility. It has to be scientific evidence. It can NEVER be faith or invisible.

Tyson really said it well for me. You did too at one stage. Can you remember? You took the position of agnostic in the Phil&Rel Forum when we had a discussion about it - quite a few years back. And then changed your position. I'd say your position of agnostic to me was closer to the truth. Which is being open to all possibilities until proven differently. Tyson goes a little bit further than that. He wants nothing to do with any ism. Now that I admire the most. As that to me is being completely open to all possibilities.

How could you be open to all possibilities when you're too focused on a narrow version of it. I.e. the "lack of deities" part. It seems to have become a mantra of sorts as well. Making it into something when it probably was intended to be "nothing". Creating a real "ism" movement out of it whereas there shouldn't have been a movement at all.

Surely you can see the paradox in this statement?

I am open to all possibilities. I have a lack of belief in deity or deities.
I have to nip to the local shop/store before it closes so (without actually reading your comments) I'll save this for now and edit when I get back Smile

*Edit*
Simple answer, if I was a police officer investigating a crime, just because I have no evidence to support any claims that Johnny Jones committed the crime does not mean I can assert he did not do it.
Equally, just because Johnny jones does not have a supporting alibi or other evidence to indicate he did not commit the crime does not mean I can assert he did not.

You really are struggling with this Dean, why?

Your apparent desperation to put me 'in a box' is almost pitiful and I wonder why you and Bluedoll are so desperate to try.
I do not assert that there are no gods but I remain open to to do that as and when any supporting evidence crosses my path. I do not have enough evidence to convince me that gods exist so I fall under the category of atheist.
Is it really that difficult to understand, or is your desperation as a result of your own insecurities of perceiving yourself in a black or white, on or off, box?
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Don't allow her obstructive and emotional posting style to suck you into her world Loremar. Stick to the points (which she made) and she will have to give it up one day, she knows atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a faith in itself, and she hates it.

She knows this of course, but the more her lame assertions about people who lack faith are presented here, then the more other 'unbrainwashed' people will be able to draw their own rational conclusions.
Loremar this should be enough to tell you something. Watersoul thinks he has an idea of what atheism is about and wants everyone to have the same idea. Maybe you already think the same way like many atheists think. That is your choice. My point is this....................

We learn from information. Do not believe a deceiver. Watersoul is not being fair here because he can not know what I am thinking or believe what I am believing in. If he goes by what I write which is fair, then he will see that I do not share the same belief as he does. Yet he devilishly is trying to convince others that he is right and I am wrong by making things up. How can he know what I am hating? What I've written about atheism is what I believe is true.

I certainly believe people put faith into the things they hold as true otherwise they wouldn't believe in it.

If he wants to call that un-rational then that is just sad!
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Watersoul is not being fair here because he can not know what I am thinking or believe what I am believing in. If he goes by what I write which is fair, then he will see that I do not share the same belief as he does. Yet he devilishly is trying to convince others that he is right and I am wrong by making things up. How can he know what I am hating? What I've written about atheism is what I believe is true.
Nope, you said 'atheists have faith in atheism' and I assert that your generalisation is incorrect because my lack of belief in gods defaults me to the category of atheist and I have no 'faith in atheism' - you are therefore incorrect in your generalisations. Quite simple.

Again though, I offer you a way out, just change your assertions to 'some' atheists, or 'extremist' atheists, and I shall leave you to rant away as much as you like Smile
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
The way I see it is an absolutely desperate effort to find my reasoned and honest position as one which cannot be called atheist.


*sigh* you really seem to be struggling with getting it Watersoul.

This is the point you made:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


You say you are an atheist. And that an atheist is someone who has lack of belief in a deity or deities. Now if you have a lack of belief in a deity or deities, are you open to the possibility of a deity or deities? Because that in my mind is being completely open to ALL possibilities. Not only are you not open to ALL possibilities, you're even qualifying your conditions for accepting any other possibility. It has to be scientific evidence. It can NEVER be faith or invisible.

Tyson really said it well for me. You did too at one stage. Can you remember? You took the position of agnostic in the Phil&Rel Forum when we had a discussion about it - quite a few years back. And then changed your position. I'd say your position of agnostic to me was closer to the truth. Which is being open to all possibilities until proven differently. Tyson goes a little bit further than that. He wants nothing to do with any ism. Now that I admire the most. As that to me is being completely open to all possibilities.

How could you be open to all possibilities when you're too focused on a narrow version of it. I.e. the "lack of deities" part. It seems to have become a mantra of sorts as well. Making it into something when it probably was intended to be "nothing". Creating a real "ism" movement out of it whereas there shouldn't have been a movement at all.

Surely you can see the paradox in this statement?

I am open to all possibilities. I have a lack of belief in deity or deities.
I can certainly understand why someone would desire proof. I can understand not being sure or having unanswered questions and wanting something better than possibilities. I think atheism has a way of providing people with very strict concepts and ideas that closes out those possibilities.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
The way I see it is an absolutely desperate effort to find my reasoned and honest position as one which cannot be called atheist.


*sigh* you really seem to be struggling with getting it Watersoul.

This is the point you made:
watersoul wrote:
so while I have seen no evidence to support such claims, I keep an open mind to any possibility.


You say you are an atheist. And that an atheist is someone who has lack of belief in a deity or deities. Now if you have a lack of belief in a deity or deities, are you open to the possibility of a deity or deities? Because that in my mind is being completely open to ALL possibilities. Not only are you not open to ALL possibilities, you're even qualifying your conditions for accepting any other possibility. It has to be scientific evidence. It can NEVER be faith or invisible.

Tyson really said it well for me. You did too at one stage. Can you remember? You took the position of agnostic in the Phil&Rel Forum when we had a discussion about it - quite a few years back. And then changed your position. I'd say your position of agnostic to me was closer to the truth. Which is being open to all possibilities until proven differently. Tyson goes a little bit further than that. He wants nothing to do with any ism. Now that I admire the most. As that to me is being completely open to all possibilities.

How could you be open to all possibilities when you're too focused on a narrow version of it. I.e. the "lack of deities" part. It seems to have become a mantra of sorts as well. Making it into something when it probably was intended to be "nothing". Creating a real "ism" movement out of it whereas there shouldn't have been a movement at all.

Surely you can see the paradox in this statement?

I am open to all possibilities. I have a lack of belief in deity or deities.
I can certainly understand why someone would desire proof. I can understand not being sure or having unanswered questions and wanting something better than possibilities. I think atheism has a way of providing people with very strict concepts and ideas that closes out those possibilities.
Atheism has 'no way' of providing anything, it is simply a descriptive term for people who lack faith in gods.
Your insecurities are rather telling now, and I'm glad you continue with your assertions as any new members will see clearly the flaws and failures in your faith-blinded definitions of the word.
Ankhanu
Round and round it goes, where it stops... it seems that I know!

Locking this because it's circular, and getting nowhere... and I don't see that changing.
Related topics
God has ordered you to kill
Ways to make hell good?
Is death something to be feared?
Which is the most growing religion???
Is the christian GOD an atheist?
The God Dellusion - Richard Dawkins
This is so absurd, i could not make it up
Principal, Athletic Director Could Face Jail Time For Prayer
Can the church make up its mind?
In defence of atheism
Theistic and Secular morality
Religion without God
Absurd cases of atheist discrimination
atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive. yes or no?
Atheist to theist to atheist
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.