Do you really want to understand the atheists?

[Evoman]

Many times, it is difficult to understand a position that other people hold, especially if it is very different from your own world-view. I know that there are a lot of christians here who make an effort to understand atheism. However, there are many christians who base their opinions of atheist deconversion on caricatures and falsehoods. I am reminded of the threads in which I was told that I am an atheist because I was beat up with a bible, or was afraid of priests, or am afraid of God.

Thanks to Synnical, I became aware of a website that has some stories of how many atheists came to accept atheism as their world-view. My story is quite different (I was never religious to begin with) but some of these stories are very interesting. If you really want to learn why people are atheist, I implore you to read these stories.

The link to the stories is here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/

A particularly neat story is given here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/vuletic.html

here is an excerpt:

"The second problem doesn't have a name that I know of, but its essence is captured by a question I had wondered about long before I began to have personal experience of god: what would things seem like to me if I had been raised in Iran? Well, no doubt I would be a Muslim, and believe in Allah, my mother told me. And of course, she was right. Now, this was not much of a problem in my liberal days, because all religions worshipped the same god, and were thus equally legitimate. But when I started to have personal experience of the Christian god, this knowledge took on more of an edge. I viewed it as a given that Islam and Christianity could not both be true, and that Christianity was true, and that Islam therefore must be false. But could I imagine a Muslim who experienced the reality of Allah in exactly the same way as I experienced the reality of the Christian God? If I could, then that would mean that it was possible for a person to seem to have an absolutely convincing experience of a deity, and yet be mistaken. But if it was possible for an absolutely convincing experience of a deity to not really be a true experience of that deity, then wouldn't that imply that my experiences might not be true? Could I blithely assert that perhaps it might be possible for Middle Easterners to deceived, but that I was so much better than them that there was no chance of my being deceived? Well, this is precisely what I did for quite a while. On top of that, I reacted in the same way as I had to the problem of Hell and the problem of suffering any doubts that appeared in my mind were condemned as betrayal of god, and pushed out of my mind as quickly and fully as possible.

But unfortunately for my religious belief, no one is the sole master of their own mind. Suppressed thoughts do not go away forever. If Freud is right, sometimes they reemerge in the form of unconscious behavior like nervous tics. Other times the unconscious seems to work on suppressed problems, and then pushes them back into the conscious arena in a new and improved form. Probably everyone has had some practical or mathematical problem solved while they slept overnight, or while they put it aside to do something else. I've personally experienced the bizarre phenomenon of mastering my high school Spanish lessons during a summer in which I did not practice Spanish at all. Something like this seems to have happened with the ill-formed questions I was having about the existence of god.

There came a point in time when the question finally emerged fully into my conscious mind and presented itself before me, stark and horrible: what if there actually was no god? What made this event so different from my previous ill-formed doubts is that this time around I was able to treat atheism as a live option. For a few seconds, I was not a religious mind, viewing atheism from behind a plexiglass shield and handling it with industrial gloves, but a neutral mind, considering what the world looked like through both religious and atheistic eyes. For an ephemeral moment, I saw that the anomalies present in my religious perspective dissolved in the light of atheism. If there was no god, then there was no divine hand to intervene into suffering and terror, and hence I ought to expect the world to look the way it does. More importantly, when I considered what my experience of Christ looked like from a neutral perspective, unconstrained by the presuppositions and emotions that had demanded I affirm the experience as real and infallible, I saw the experience for what it was. I did not see a man with direct and infallible perception of a supernatural being, but rather a mere mortal, entangled in a coherent stream of imagination sustained by hope, habit, guilt, and fear."




So gave have a look. It may open your eyes a bit as to why atheists are atheist.

[MindPilot]

1. I came to Atheism as a child.

There was nothing philosophical about it. I had already figured out the adults had lied about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Could they be lying about God, Jesus and heaven as well?

My answer came one evening in the basement of the Rosedale Baptist Church when I discovered that the "blood of Christ" came cleverly disguised as Hi-C Grape Juice. His flesh turned out to be broken bits of Nabisco Saltines.

I still played the game because I had to, but at every service, at every Sunday school class, I felt so powerful because I had knowledge no-one else possessed. I KNEW it was a fabrication, and all these other people--even adults who were supposed to be so experienced and wise--weren't able to figure that out.

[RobertSeattle]

2. OT, but here's some great atheist quotes

http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php

[CrispyQ]

3. My moment came when my 4th grade Sunday school teacher

was telling us how you could reconcile the big bang theory with belief in G-d, because, "Where did the hydrogen come from?" she asked us. "It came from G-d!" she answered. My next thought was, well, where did G-d come from? Sadly, I asked this question aloud & the following Sunday I had to endure a personal lecture from the minister regarding faith.

It's the whole watchmaker paradox. If the watch is so complex it needs a maker, then the maker must be even more complex & need a maker, & so on & so on. Why does the hydrogen need a source of origin but G-d does not?

[squarepants]

4. I think that both

sides should try to understand each other, or at least try and have some respect. I've read some atheists on this very board who liken people's religious beliefs to believing in santa claus. Mind you, from an atheists point of view, that is EXACTLY what it must look like. By the same token, I've read where christians (on other boards. I don't think I've seen that here) have referred to atheists as immoral. Neither side has to agree with the other, HOWEVER, neither side needs to be mean and disrespectful to the other side just because they don't believe the same thing. If someone wants to believe in a god, they should have the right to do that, and atheists should understand that there are people on this planet who choose to believe in such things. Perhaps believing in a god helps someone to feel better or to make sense of the world. I don't see what is wrong with that (as long as that particular person isn't trying to force it on others). Atheists should respect that and stop referring to people's deep spiritual beliefs as fairy tales, etc. To me, the ones who do that are just as bad as the religious fanatics. One can not agree with a viewpoint without insulting people. Christians and other religious affiliations should respect atheism as well. An atheist has a right NOT to believe in a god if they choose to. There is no reason for religious people to call them immoral or accuse them of having an agenda to rid the world of God. It's bullcrap. Both sides need to try and understand each other.

[MindPilot]

5. It's not an insult, it is a fact.

Believing in god and not believing in god are not equal. It's not a choice between Coke or Pepsi; it's more like robbing banks or not robbing banks. One choice makes a lot of sense, the other not so much.

God is just that--a belief, an imaginary friend, a myth, dare I say it...a fairy tale. If belief in a deity or higher power works for you fine, well and good. But do not put belief on the same intellectual plane as reality.

[squarepants]

7. Mindpilot

thank you for proving my point on what I said in my post :eyes:

According to YOU, they don't belong on the same level. Good. You're entitled to feel that way. I on the other hand, view them as being on the same level, and I'M entitled to that :)

Thanks

[SPKrazy]

10. Yes You Are

don't let the atheists tell you otherwise

[SPKrazy]

9. Nice Try

but exactly what is reality?

explain that to me, then we'll talk

[Orrex]

21. That's pretty simple, but I suspect that you won't like the answer

Reality is that which is.

More specifically, it is that which exists independent of our interpretation of our perceptions of it. Those fond of "Schroedinger's Cat" will likely invoke the power of our perceptions to collapse a wave function. But our act of perceiving and our interpretation of our perception are not verifiably equivalent.

As finite, fallible creatures, we are unable to make absolute claims with certainty about the nature of reality or even to verify that our perceptions of it are objectively accurate.

"Objectively accurate perceptions" in this context means "perceptions exactly consistent with that which is being perceived." At best, we may attempt to confirm that numerous individuals share a perception in common, but even this is limited by the failings of language.

We may also posit explanatory models--mathematical or otherwise--that are consistent with observed reality to a high degree of reliability. But these are models describing our perception of reality and should not be mistaken for reality itself.



Now here's a question for you: What exactly is the nature of God? Explain that to me, in unambiguous, non-metaphorical, and indisputable terms, and then we'll talk. Until then, you and every other theist are just making everything up as you go along.

[SPKrazy]

47. "Until Then You And Every Other Theist Are Just Making Everything Up As

you go along"


and it so obviously pisses you off that I'll just sit here and relish the thought of how my "made up" (although I don't know that I have made up anything-that's your perception of reality) beliefs piss you off.

[Orrex]

49. The willful rejection of rational inquiry does piss me off, yes

And whether or not you think you're making it up is irrelevant. Unless you can verify to a reasonably high degree of certainty that your theistic claims are true and correct, you're falling back on conjecture, dogma, wishful thinking, and hearsay (and "Faith" covers at least two of those). Any claim to the effect that "it's true for me" is an explicit acknowledgement that you're "making it up."

[SPKrazy]

50. Like They Say

better to be pissed off




than pissed on



I can't help you

[Orrex]

53. You realize that you're identifying yourself as "pissed on," right?

But your reply echoes my recent conversation with a friend.

He asked if it's better to be naive than wrong. He, leaning toward the touchie-feelie new-agey mindset, declared with some confidence that the former is preferable.

As someone who prizes the search for knowledge more highly than the search for succoring comfort, I found his answer off-putting, to state it lightly. And it's a foolish position in any case, because you can easily be both naive and wrong.

Worse, once you've made the choice to be naive, you're no longer naive: you're willfully ignorant, and you deserve whatever huckster comes along to take advantage of you.


So if I'm wrong, let someone show me to be wrong, because I would learn from it. But you don't even consider the possibility, and you certainly don't seem able to consider that you might be wrong.

You're even worse off than being pissed on. You're being pissed on and you've chosen not to realize it. Far from being unable to help me, you've made yourself deliberately unable to help yourself.


And for the record, your ten-syllable answers might seem like the height of cleverness, but they in fact reveal a frank unwillingness to engage the discussion. That's a symptom of being unwilling to question one's beliefs, and the hallmark of closed-mindedness.

[SPKrazy]

54. No I'd Rather Be Pissed Off Thanks Though

[Random_Australian]

115. Pfffft, not so MindPilot.

The difference between believing or not believing is that you are taking the difference between the highest chance of accuracy and what you get for not thinking that way, and choosing which one suits you.

That means it is not such a bad choice to believe in God.

[CrispyQ]

6. ...

Welcome to DU! :hi: You have a lovely cat avatar!

[squarepants]

8. Heehee,

thanks CrispyQGirl. Love the kitty cats! I have 2.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neebob]

13. I wouldn't call it a mental disability

more like willful disregard for a certain kind of logic. Otherwise, you've made some great points. I'm rethinking my position on the Santa Claus analogy, even if I'm tempted to defend it.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. If a person treats other people well

and is happy with their own view of the world, then I have no problem with whatever they believe (or don't believe as it were).

[rasputin1952]

14. I have some questions about atheist threads in R/T...

I ask these simply as a member, not a Moderator.

1. Why are there so many atheist posts/threads in R/T?
There is an Atheist Forum.

2. Do atheists post in R/T simply a mode to justify their own position?
Seems to me, justification would be far more likely in the Atheist Forum, as opposed to R/T.

3. Why is it that Christianity is the target of the vast majority of of these posts?
There are many religions, and yet Christianity appears to be just about the only one on the radar.

4. Why can't people from all sides, just allow others to believe what they feel is the "truth"?
These are personal decisions made after thought and reflection. People should be far more tolerant.

I must reiterate that I am not posting as a Moderator. I look into this Forum occasionally and see that there is a lot of animosity, from all sides I might add, and that does not appear to me to be the best way to resolve conflict.

The beliefs of one should not necessarily interfere with the beliefs of another. When there is no empirical evidence that shows either side as "correct", this all becomes a charade, a place where people are seeking justification of their personal views, because there is a shallowness in the position taken.

I have had 2 NDE's, and both occasions, I have had profound 'revelations' that have cemented my views into what I believe to be reality. I ask no one to accept what I believe, and I respect others for their beliefs. I think that these arguments have little purpose other than as an ego booster for either side.

Make Peace and Understanding your goals...seek wisdom as if it were golden...always seek for the truth, use the tools we have, science, religion, knowledge. Come to ones own conclusions about life and the universe. Rest easy in the path you have chosen, do not set snares for others....You will live to be happy....:)

edited for some poor spelling that spell-check didn't p/u.

[Evoman]

15. I will answer your queries.

"1. Why are there so many atheist posts/threads in R/T?
There is an Atheist Forum. "

There is an atheist group, not a forum. You gotta donate to post, and maybe some of the people here can't afford it? There is also a christian forum but, unlike the atheist forum, its barely used. Besides, why would you just restrict yourself to people like you?

"2. Do atheists post in R/T simply a mode to justify their own position?"

Look, if atheists don't post in this forum, it LITERALLY dies. No one, even though they try to convince themselves otherwiese, wants this forum to just include theists. Again, look at the christian group. Why aren't there more disccusions there about theology? Most of the threads in that place (though I haven't checked it recently) are Pray For Me threads.

"3. Why is it that Christianity is the target of the vast majority of of these posts?""

Um, because its christianity we deal with almost exclusively in real life. Most of the things I talk about apply to other religions as well, but we have no represenatives here, so to cut down on typing time, I say Christian. Actually, a lot of time I simply say theists anyways.

"4. Why can't people from all sides, just allow others to believe what they feel is the "truth"?
These are personal decisions made after thought and reflection. People should be far more tolerant."

I hope this doesn't just apply to the atheists. In the past week, I've been told I'm closeminded because I don't believe in god. I've been "taught" how to CONVERT atheists. I've been told my position is based on fear, and not rational examination. Respect is a two way street. You can't have a flame war with one side. We all allow others to believe what they want, atheist and theist both. However discussing ideas requires some amount of conflict. IF we all agree with everything the other says, what kind of discussion would we have? And you can't have a proper discussion without intellectually challenging other people.

E.g

Theist: I believe your position is based on fear.

Atheist: I disagree. I believe your position is based on fear.

Theist: Hmm...I disagree. Okay....um....goodbye.

Atheist: Goodbye


"I must reiterate that I am not posting as a Moderator. I look into this Forum occasionally and see that there is a lot of animosity, from all sides I might add, and that does not appear to me to be the best way to resolve conflict."

There is no animosity on my part. Truth be told, I like a lot of the christians here. Some of them may hate me, I don't know. I hope not. But no one has to be here...there are groups for people who want echo chambers. Now, as a mod you may have an opinion on this. What would you think if we kept the religion/theology forum, but also started a forum called "Atheist/Theist Discussion"? Lol..which one do you think would have more posts ;)


"The beliefs of one should not necessarily interfere with the beliefs of another. When there is no empirical evidence that shows either side as "correct", this all becomes a charade, a place where people are seeking justification of their personal views, because there is a shallowness in the position taken. "

There can be a lot of flame wars here, but no more than in GD, I'm sure. This is not a charade, its more of a fleshing out of opinions. You may not visit enough, because there have been many times a consensus has been reached. It takes time, and it takes discussion. You could say the same thing...why talk about Israel/Palestine. Is that a charade? Does anybody EVER change their opinion? Why do we have discussions at all? Its because, every now and then, there comes a post that informs us and gets us thinking....maybe hes right about that. I didn't know that. That post has a point. That post has taught me something.

"I have had 2 NDE's, and both occasions, I have had profound 'revelations' that have cemented my views into what I believe to be reality. I ask no one to accept what I believe, and I respect others for their beliefs. I think that these arguments have little purpose other than as an ego booster for either side."

Dude, I'm glad your not dead! Really. There has been some research into NDE..are you aware of it?

"Does the arousal system contribute to near death experience?
Kevin R. Nelson, MD, Michelle Mattingly, PhD, Sherman A. Lee, PhD and Frederick A. Schmitt, PhD

From the Departments of Neurology (K.R.N., M.M., F.A.S.) and Education and Counseling (S.A.L.) and Sanders-Brown Center on Aging (F.A.S.), Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Behavioral Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Address correspondence to Dr Nelson, Department of Neurology, Kentucky Clinic L-445, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40536-0284; e-mail: [e-mail]

The neurophysiologic basis of near death experience (NDE) is unknown. Clinical observations suggest that REM state intrusion contributes to NDE. Support for the hypothesis follows five lines of evidence: REM intrusion during wakefulness is a frequent normal occurrence, REM intrusion underlies other clinical conditions, NDE elements can be explained by REM intrusion, cardiorespiratory afferents evoke REM intrusion, and persons with an NDE may have an arousal system predisposing to REM intrusion. To investigate a predisposition to REM intrusion, the life-time prevalence of REM intrusion was studied in 55 NDE subjects and compared with that in age/gender-matched control subjects. Sleep paralysis as well as sleep-related visual and auditory hallucinations were substantially more common in subjects with an NDE. These findings anticipate that under circumstances of peril, an NDE is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion. REM intrusion could promote subjective aspects of NDE and often associated syncope. Suppression of an activated locus ceruleus could be central to an arousal system predisposed to REM intrusion and NDE."

See. I'm not argueing with you about NDE's. But trying to discuss it by posting some science about it. Is this intolerance? Is this a disrespectful discussion?


"Make Peace and Understanding your goals...seek wisdom as if it were golden...always seek for the truth, use the tools we have, science, religion, knowledge. Come to ones own conclusions about life and the universe. Rest easy in the path you have chosen, do not set snares for others....You will live to be happy.... "

Agreed!

[rasputin1952]

16. First off, yes I have done research into NDE's, nothing is empirical, so

it all theory and conjecture. I know what i went through, and for me, it was an epiphany. It may not be so for others, and for those who have had experiences, I would like to discuss them.

As for the rest of your posts, allow me to say thanks for not taking a confrontational tone. There are far to many willing to crush discussion under the heel of dogma, and nothing gets done whenever that happens.

While I do not agree w/all you say, it appears that dialog is the goal. This is a good thing. If those from all sides were to sit down and discuss situations, I suspect that very few, if any would change their minds, but those minds would be opened instead of the usual, "I know I'm right, so you must be wrong" types of things. We all have things that can contribute to a greater understanding between all cultures, societies and religion/non-religion. It comes down to avoiding sarcasm, baseless attacks and foolish diatribes that alienate all sides.

I have no problem w/atheists, except that a lot of that position, just like that of theists, is conjecture. The biggest problem I have in all of this, is the lack of rational response as to why being an atheist is not an issue of personal faith in the decision to become an atheist. W/O empirical evidence, there is nothing but faith to go on that a decision was made that is the correct decision.

Semantics can wreak havoc on rational discussion...:)

[Orrex]

19. "a lot of (atheists') position, just like that of theists, is conjecture."

I have no problem w/atheists, except that a lot of that position, just like that of theists, is conjecture. The biggest problem I have in all of this, is the lack of rational response as to why being an atheist is not an issue of personal faith in the decision to become an atheist. W/O empirical evidence, there is nothing but faith to go on that a decision was made that is the correct decision.

Forgive me, but you're making a mistake, or at least you're looking at only one type of atheism.
Many atheists make this claim:

The available evidence is insufficient to justify a belief in God, therefore I do not believe in God.

and the rest of these atheists' opinions follow from that basic statement. It involves no conjecture whatsoever, nor does it involve any sort of faith. Any form of theism that entails a belief in God is conjectural in a way that this type of atheism simply can't be.

In response to that statement, a theist will sometimes argue that "faith in one's ability to reason" is somehow equivalent to "faith in an omnipotent, infinite, eternal, and omnibenevolent deity." But that, of course, is a false analogy, because one's ability to reason is tested constantly (and likewise verified to exist) in everyday life, whereas the existence of God has never been demonstrated.

There are, I admit, some forms of atheism that make the definitive claim that God does not exist. That view may or may not be conjectural, depending on how it is phrased.

[Evoman]

35. Atheism is not NECESSARILY conjecture.

I suppose if you said that you knew 100 percent there was no god (i.e definitly) then maybe it would be conjecture. However, almost none of the people here say that. Again, I refer to my ass pimple god that I talked about in the other thread. My ass pimple tells me that it is omnipotent. Do you believe it?

Okay, let me try the Zeus explanation.

You probably don't believe in Zeus. Now, this can manifest itself in two ways

1)Faith there is no Zeus. You don't at all believe there is a Zeus, because its..well..he just doesn't EXIST OKAY! 100 percent no Zeus!

2)Reasons why there is no Zeus. You have seen no evidence of Zeus, you have never met someone impregnated by an animal that could talk. You have never seen chariots of fire, minotaurs, or shape changing old men. Mount Olympus has never been found, and there are no godlings. These are probably just stories people told themselves hundreds of years ago to explain the world, and there probably is no Zeus. Hell, there might be...but there is no reasonable expectation to believe it.

Which one are you? I argue that the second is not faith. If you call it faith, than the we are getting into semantics, where any belief is a faith and everything is faith. Which is stupid, because most people speaking the language don't agree that that is faith....unless they are playing word games.

I have no faith. None. No faith. To argue with me, is to call me a liar.

You may be a mod, but your making a big mistake calling me a liar ;)

Evoman

[rasputin1952]

45. I never called anyone a liar...that is a cheap shot.

You came to the conclusion there is no deity, since that cannot be proven, (or visa versa), you must contend that you are acting on your personal faith there is no deity.

If that is wrong, show me where...:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

51. Telling us we have beliefs when we insist we don't is the same thing.

We say we don't have beliefs/faith, you tell us we do.

You're basically saying either we're lying or we're stupid.

And telling us we don't know how to correctly define our atheism also infers that we're not intelligent enough to know any better.

Gee, could that be why so many DU atheists take issue with your opinions about atheism?

[NMMNG]

56. I don't know why

But it seems you cannot separate two very different things:

1. I believe there are no gods/I assert there are no gods. (A positive statement, some faith involved.)

and

2. I do not believe in any gods. (A simple lack of belief--no "faith" involved at all.)

[rasputin1952]

60. But assertion #2 is based on the faith that you are correct in your

methodology.

It may seem like semantics, but you have to have faith in the assumption there is no deity since there is no empirical evidence to prove the situation either way.

In either case, the end result is faith that one is correct. One cannot say, "I don't believe" and not take the next logical step, re "why not", any answer depends on faith of the correctness of the assumption.

I have been called on this in several cases, and have yet to see where anyone can show me where I am wrong. I do not have a thick skull, nor am I stupid...I know that faith is involved in the decision process....one must have faith that their assumption is correct, it is not about a deity, but about self.

[NMMNG]

62. There is no "assumption"

Assumption: 1. An axiom or statement, not necessarily true but put forward and taken to be true to enable further analysis of a hypothesis, or for the purposes of investigating what follows in relation to a theory. 2. A presupposition, or the basis of an assertion, required to be true for the assertion to be true. Assumptions are often unstated or even unknown, but implied by the associated theory or argument. Almost all thought processes and knowledge are based upon some assumptions. ...
www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/biodict.htm



I simply don't believe. I assume nothing, I assert nothing, I deny nothing, I presuppose nothing--in reference to deities. I simply lack belief in them. Absence of something is not existence of something.

I don't believe because I have not seen any evidence that deities exist. If someone presents me with empirical evidence that deities exist I will examine it and reconsider my lack of belief.




BTW: I wonder why it is that believers think it is acceptable for them to constantly redefine atheist's positions on things and to even tell them their definitions of themselves are wrong. If a believer stated "this is what I believe" and an atheist replied, "No, you believe XYZ" would not a cry of outrage go up?

[rasputin1952]

63. But you are asserting something, specifically that you do not

believe a deity exists, that assertion is based on the assumption that you have no empirical proof.

"Almost all thought processes and knowledge are based upon some assumptions. ...".

Those assumptions come around to theories, those theories become a thought process that comes to a conclusion...that conclusion, if not based on fact, by default, if accepted as true, it must be taken on faith that the answer is correct because proof cannot exist at the present time.

I am not redefining atheism, nor am I describing it or people who follow it in anything but a realistic POV. From the baseline, it takes belief in ones assertions, to create a personal or universal truth, without empirical evidence, faith is the only answer...the faith that one is correct in their assumption, whether that be positive or negative is still a faith that the person came to the correct conclusion.

[NMMNG]

64. .........

[beam me up scottie]

65. I love the second smilie.

Perfect. :D

[NMMNG]

66. Sometimes that's the only response left.

:shrug:

[TransitJohn]

83. "Around around the mullberry bush the mokey chased the weasel....."

:popcorn:

[Zhade]

86. WE DO *NOT* ASSERT THAT GODS DON'T EXIST.

We have NOT said "gods don't exist". We simply don't believe in them.

Yet you refuse to take us at our word. You are now saying we are either 1) lying about what we think or 2) know less than you do about our own minds.

We. Don't. Assert. Gods. Don't. Exist.

Read it, then read it again, then commit it to memory. We don't assert anything except that our brains do not conclude gods exist based on the lack of evidence, NOT that our brains conclude it has been proven there are no gods. If evidence someday appears, we will evaluate it and if the evidence shows gods exist, we will believe in them, because they will have been shown to exist.

Please go back and read the threads on this issue so you'll finally get it. Until then, kindly refrain from telling us what we think. It's exactly as bad as an atheist telling a Christian they believe in ___ when said Christian does not.

[rasputin1952]

110. For one thing, "we" is probably not a good way to get a personal

point across.

What do YOU think this is all about?

I am saying that on a personal level, decisions were made from information available, (or lack thereof).
If a decision is made, it hopefully was a rational decision based on one's own experience and available knowledge of the situation at hand. If that decision was made, and it is non-provable, the decision has to be upheld by a personal faith that the correct decs ion was made. If you don't have faith in your decs ion process, how can you stand by conclusions?

That is a rational thought process, yet people seem to think that for some reason, it is incredibly offensive. To avoid being offended, all I'm asking for is that someone show me why the above is incorrect.

[Random_Australian]

116. You ask, you learn.

Internal consistency. (For this, note that faith = making assumptions)

I took the extreme case and tested whether or not the underlying process was true WITHOUT assuming that the underlying process was true.

Now, you will have noticed by now that I was using itself to investigate itself. Yes, that means that it is possible that I am wrong. I will return to this, soon.

Then I used that method, still not assuming it was correct, on the physical world as I knew it. I had learnt enough math and physics that I have a very accurate knowledge of this, provided that logic was itself true (which was not assumed).

Finally, (for this process), I expressed logic as a function of itself. (For a reasonable approximation, just say that evolution made it so that we are rarely delusional - sort of)

Therefore it had maximised internal consistency.

Now, lastly before we move on to whether I believe this process to be correct, that thing about atheism and Gods again, though this time for a different purpose.

The reason that the implicit atheist does not say that there is no God is not because they believe their world view to be accurate, but because it gives the highest chance that something is accurate. If you are wondering why, note how many ways you can disprove a collective of (x) assertions, compared to a collective of (x+1) assertions.

Now, we can see that the point never was accuracy, merely the highest chance of accuracy.

For various reasons, there is a higher chance that I am accurate if I act as if I had a moderately good perception of the world. (If you want to know, ask, and when I have a LOT of spare time I will go into it).

This means following logic.

This means implicit atheism.

This is the reason that it takes NO FAITH to be an atheist, and why one does not even need faith in ones decision making process. (Well, most of the reason. That deals with the possiblity I am in the matrix or anything - however, there is a seperate one for insanity, so don't think you can get around me)

There you go.

Feel free to disagree.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Egad. Do you really not know the difference between groups and forums?

I'm going to assume you don't moderate this forum since you would have already deleted all of our posts.

[rasputin1952]

18. So group/Forum has become dereguer...

and as for the swipe at deleting posts....Please...:)

So group is fine by me, but they are still forums for discussion. I do not wish to play semantics, that is an old debaters ploy, just as is the double negative.

What I am looking for are answers. I am not looking for a fight, I want answers; serious discussions lead to answers, or at least to the path where answers are eventually forthcoming. It takes little to make baseless accusations, and leave the situation unanswered; that is the easy way out.

I came here w/questions, most would be adept at answering them, if there was a baseline where they could justify why they felt as such.

[beam me up scottie]

20. You repeatedly refuse to accept the correct definition of atheism,

ignore the explanations of DU atheists, not to mention their pleas for respect, and insist you are "looking for answers" ???

:rofl:

[rasputin1952]

22. So where is your definition?

Another spurious post w/o answering the question...:shrug:

And you call my belief "fragile"?

[cosmik debris]

23. I wouldn't dare speak for BMUS

but I can tell you two things about atheists that you seem to ignore. The only thing all atheists have in common is that theists disagree with us. The only statement all atheists agree to is "I don't believe."

Anyone who attempts to ascribe other attributes to atheists is blowing smoke and probably pursuing their own agenda.

[rasputin1952]

24. So what do you believe in? Yourself, nature...whatever, is fine

by me, but one must believe in something.

It is fine by me if you don't believe in a deity, no sweat off my brow, but that does not end the search for a "truth".

Whatever the case, a belief in either a deity or a lack thereof, is still an individual belief. W/O empirical evidence one way or the other, the decision can only be maintained by personal faith that the decision is the correct one.

This is the entire essence of my point in this discussion.

[cosmik debris]

25. You didn't even read what I typed!

I DON'T BELIEVE. I know that doesn't fit into your binary choice system, but I DON'T BELIEVE. I have no belief. Is that so difficult for you to fathom?

[rasputin1952]

26. I did read what you posted...in essence, you posted you "don't believe"

and that other atheists "don't believe."

Yet you are alive, you breathe, you type messages, you believe you are alive, as do I. In fact, I know you are alive because we are having a dialog.

You do not have to believe in any form of deity, nor anything else supernatural, but in order to make this determination, you will have most likely looked at all of the alternatives, and made your decision. You have to believe you made the correct decision, or why even bring it up?

I believe you exist, I have no problem w/that at all, nor do I have any problem with how you came to the conclusion that you don't believe in a deity; however, at the very least, you have to believe in yourself, you have to believe you exist.

Like I've said in other posts, it is no sweat off my brow whether you believe in a deity or not, I don't really care...the entire point is that each of us must believe in something, the common denominator is that we all believe we exist, and we make decisions on what has been presented.

[cosmik debris]

27. I am at a loss for words

I say "I don't believe." You say that I do believe.

I certainly don't believe YOU.

There is nothing more I can say.

[beam me up scottie]

29. When trying to discuss atheism with someone who tells us we're too stupid

to understand our atheism in a thread titled "Do you really want to understand the atheists?", there's not much you can say.

[cosmik debris]

30. And I wasted so much time trying

Do I get extra credit for spelling "I DO NOT BELIEVE" correctly?

[beam me up scottie]

31. You get extra credit for not bringing Santa into this.

oops.

There goes mine.

:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

37. or mental illness???? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

39. !

:spank:

[rasputin1952]

32. That is absurd, I never stated you were stupid in any of my posts...

in fact, you have alluded that I am stupid and intolerant on several occasions.

I don't think you are stupid in the least, I simply cannot see where you have asserted you came to your conclusions.

On numerous occasions, I have asked, all I get are minor attacks.

I suppose you can feel like you're being attacked, nothing I can do about that except produce what I have posted above and here.

The final act comes to calling me stupid?

In this entire encounter, I have received some excellent replies that I have accepted, but for me to be accused of silly things, like I would delete posts, can't possibly "understand", I am stupid or ignorant, I am intolerant....and yet, no answer to the queries I have put forth.

Allow me to reiterate, I don't care what you believe in, or don't believe in, it is of no consequence to me in the scheme of things. My entire point is that you have to have faith, (in this instance), that your conclusions are correct. This is a personal faith and has nothing to do with religion, it is personal faith that you are correct, not faith in a deity or lack thereof.

I really don't see where that is difficult to grasp.

If you see it another way that refutes my view, I am open to anything you might post. But let's see if we can keep this from becoming too personal in the sense of the attack mode. I never once called you ignorant, nor stupid, nor foolish, not have I been derogatory to you in any way, I see no reason for you to come forth calling me names or establishing a poor rapport.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Oh, right. I forgot, we're just using the "wrong" definition.

Good thing you're here to edjumacate us.

[cosmik debris]

34. Jesus Fuckin Christ!!!

"My entire point is that you have to have faith, (in this instance), that your conclusions are correct."

We draw NO conclusions. That seems to be what is escaping you.

OK now you can delete this message.

[beam me up scottie]

38. That would explain why he can't see them.

"I simply cannot see where you have asserted you came to your conclusions."

[rasputin1952]

42. If you draw no conclusions, why even argue your point?

You have drawn a conclusion, you have stated that you "Don't believe"...that is a conclusion.


Why do you feel you should state I can delete your post...I have stated before would never do that. I came into this conversation, and have been basically been drawn over the coals, but have received only one well advanced post in return, to which I accepted as intelligent discourse.

I don't think your position is untenable in the least, as far as atheism goes, and I nowhere stated atheism is a "religion" based on faith.

You are not intellectually defending your position, you are in attack mode. It is far easier to attack than produce defending your position.

[cosmik debris]

43. I give up

You have driven me to drink. And now, on my second bottle of wine, I find you arguments even more absurd than when I was sober. So now, I must retire. Not with regret, but with pity. tomorrow morning I will be free from delusion. I wish the same for you.

[Zhade]

88. There is no conclusion save one:

"we don't believe in gods".

NOT "we believe gods don't exist."

NOT "it has been proven gods don't exist."

There is nothing to be correct about. When I say "I don't believe in god", it is a statement about how my brain works. YOU don't know how MY brain works. I do. It does not contain the ability to believe in things for which there is no objective evidence - which is exactly why I DON'T say "I believe there are no gods", because to assert that WOULD be based on faith, since I don't have all the knowledge in the universe (if I did, I'D be god).

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Random_Australian]

78. I don't believe I exist!

I don't disbelieve I exist either.

In other words, I think that I may or may not exist. I summed out the potentials and they cancel very well.

[TransitJohn]

84. round and round and round

Whatever the case, a belief in either a deity or a lack thereof, is still an individual belief.

Do you not see that you are refusing to have a legitimate discussion yet?

[beam me up scottie]

28. Same place they were was last time we had this conversation.

I completely understand why you're still confused, since you didn't bother to read or even acknowledge the definitions then, either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism /

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

http://www.atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Stein/whatisath.html

[rasputin1952]

36. I have read these in the past, and I well recall our previous conversation

However, that does not alleviate the situation.


The only thing I am saying is that people use faith to make decisions where there is no empirical proof that shows us otherwise. In many cases, there are people who make decisions based on some faith, even when there is empirical evidence that profoundly proves them wrong. There are still people in the Flat Earth Society after all.

I am not posting to attack anyones faith in their decisions, nor am I posting to say that atheism is a religion...I am only posting that conclusions adhered to, without empirical evidence, needs to be based on the faith of the individual that the "correct" answer has come to conclusion.

At any given time, for any reason, people have the option of changing their minds, especially after new evidence is presented. One also has the option of changing their minds when evidence is refuted, I have no problem with any of those situations. People also have the option of maintaining whatever they choose to believe, as they are want to do.

If you can tell me that taking a stance w/o empirical evidence is anything but a form of personal faith, I am open to all discussion.

[cosmik debris]

40. Now , that is certainly half-brief

Is that an inside joke yet?

[beam me up scottie]

41. Really? You read all of that and still don't get it?

Perhaps it is beyond your reach.

Don't you give it another thought, the big bad atheist won't beat you up anymore.

[rasputin1952]

44. So let me get this straight...You can entice me to other sites and

because others say things that you agree with, it is suddenly "OK".

That is a kin to religious people telling me to go the Bible because it is true.

What do YOU, as an individual think of the universe and all the things in it?

I can accept the possibility that is all just some aberration, I can accept the possibility that all of this is a figment of my imagination. But I come to my own conclusions through personal experience and searching for answers. Long ago, I gave up on tenets of many religious aspects of life, and I have kept some. For me, that works.

Once again, I hold no animosity, and yet you seem to feel free to call me names, I find that interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

46. You think I "entice" you? And that I called you names?

:yoiks:

Your take on reality is .... um, I'm going to say interesting and leave it at that.


The only reason I offered alternative sources is because you ignore and/or reject everything DU atheists post on the subject.


You can keep believing whatever you need to believe about atheists in general and me in particular, but stop misrepresenting my thoughts, because you obviously have no idea what the hell you're talking about and no desire to learn.

[SPKrazy]

48. Thank Rasputin!

you make sense and I've asked this question, though not so eloquently as you!

now, if only this could truly be an R/T forum instead of an atheist putting down Christian forum (and I know I'll get flamed again for this)

because it could be so much more than just a place where it seems that people try to put down Christianity.

[rasputin1952]

52. Well...the whole thing is about discussion and learning from one

another.

Regardless of the side one takes, when grenades are tossed, explosions and wounds follow. It is difficult to hold discourse when either side, or both sides decide that there's is the only "true" position, and there is no room for dialog, but plenty of room for spurious attacks.

In good dialog, people explain their positions and then justify them to the "opposition". Once it degenerates into a flamefest, there is no sense continuing the dialog. Both sides then contend they have a "victory", but reality dictates that nothing was resolved, therefore "victory" is an illusion; all anyone did was send the other side off tho the sidelines and when the "debate" begins again, both sides are more adamant because they think they accomplished something previously.

I guess it comes down to a common basic form of courtesy that can get things done, without the courtesy, there is nothing to any of these conversations....:)

[beam me up scottie]

55. Courtesy.

Like that which most DU atheists afford believers when they accept their definitions of themselves.

Too bad there is so little reciprocal courtesy from believers in threads like this one.


I think I'll start a thread telling DU christians they believe that GWB is the messiah and see how well that's received.

When they protest, I'll just ignore their definitions and keep redefining words so that I'm right and they're wrong.

[NMMNG]

57. Yes

Because all of the insults hurled in here are from atheists to Christians.

[rasputin1952]

58. I think we can all agree that insults are hurled by all sides...

some overt, some snide and thinly veiled.

There are few innocents in grenade fights...:(

[NMMNG]

59. It just seems that all we see in here is

"The atheists are always saying nasty things about/to the Christians", as if the reverse never happens. It gets rather frustrating after countless repetitions.

[rasputin1952]

61. As it does for the other side...very few have learned discourse, and

many feel that the only way to debate is to argue and toss fireballs and grenades. Some go so far as lay minefields as well, and very little is ever resolved....:(

[Random_Australian]

70. Yo! Example of atheist saying that the majority of Christian posts attack

atheists, like your own above, or it is a not-happening on atheists complaining that they are bieng attacked!

(Also, yes, I realise both sides insult, that is not what I am talking about)

[SPKrazy]

81. I've Not Seen Any Putting Down

of atheists here

that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

and your definition of being put down may be something that I have yet to become aware of

for instance, I never realized that atheists are rather sensitive about this whole idea of beliefs vs. non-belief, yet I don't understand the position taken.

I usually try to respect that one.

[NMMNG]

98. It happens

We have been called immoral, mentally challenged and other such slurs. We've had proselytizing and Bible verses quoted to us in spite. Worst of all we are constantly having our non-belief being redefined and being told to our faces things like, "The definition of atheism you use is wrong, here is what atheism is".

[Zhade]

89. Oh, come on, SPK. He thinks he can tell us how our minds work...

...and you call R/T a place that puts down believers?

Do you also not see why his refusal to accept our self-definition is so infuriating?

Suppose I said that, because you're a Christian, you believe gays belong in hell. Well, you don't, AFAIK, so that wouldn't be your belief, right? And you might feel a bit angry if I were to insist, despite your knowing your mind better than I, that you do in fact believe what I tell you you believe?

It COULD be a place that does better if NO ONE is insulted. Not telling people what they think is one way to start.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

[Random_Australian]

68. Here we go, the answers, and try not to be so insulting in future.

1) "There is an atheist forum"

Yeah! I agree! And those FUCKING CHRISTIANS, STUPID PAGANS, JEWISH PEOPLE, MUSLIMS, AND SEEKERS ON UNIQUE PATH PEOPLE can fuck right off too! They have their own forums!

:sarcasm:

(But they do have their own forums: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=350 )

Now to explain in a serious way - this is a forum where people of very different worldviews discuss those views. It is no echo chamber.

2."Do atheists post in R/T simply a mode to justify their own position?"

No.

3."Why is it that Christianity is the target of the vast majority of of these posts?"

Target? The OP put forth some links of atheist stories. Explain how this is an attack. Go on, I dare you.

4. Yeah, I do allow others there truths. I am not the one calling for discrimination against atheists, or anyone else based on their religion or lack thereof.

Extra:

Make those things my goals? I already had, in fact I had been making some attempts to bring peace here, but it has not been easy, and may I point out that treating people differently because of their beliefs is not the way forward.

[NMMNG]

69. Excellent post RA

But it's going to fall on deaf ears.

[Random_Australian]

71. I know. I just got here, I wish I had seen it earlier. I am getting close

to the point where I will start a thread of doom and get this all out of the way once and for all.

[NMMNG]

72. .........

:yoiks:









:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

73. No, really. I am about a 50 cent taxi ride from kicking the bare behind of

anyone who pulls any stupid shit.


:)

[NMMNG]

74. I wanna watch!

[Random_Australian]

76. Only my schoolwork keeps me from it.

But one day, you will see a thread with me at the helm, entitled 'come one, come all!' where I will destroy everything I don't like. :)

Lucky that I like a world in which we have some religion and many diverse viewpoints.

[rasputin1952]

80. Excuse me....I ask some questions, and you come back in attack

mode?

As I have stated aboe, that is not conducive to dialog, it is just creates a brawl; precisely why people dig in their heels and go head to head w/o a thoughtful process, and nothing gets resolved.

And for the record, it is not being insulting to ask questions and expect civil discourse, it is insulting to jump in yelling because you think you have been insulted w/o first trying to maintain civil discourse.

[Random_Australian]

113. Why do the stupid fucking Christians spend all their time in whining

assault on their atheist superiors?

Of course, this was merely a civil question, like yours, so I expect only civil discourse, stupid fucking Christian.

(Yes, I don't mean it, I was trying to show you what your questions sounded like. You have not engaged in civil discourse. You have mounted an attack. That simple.. do I really need to quote you?)

****************************

Now that we have that out of the way, you can go back, read my post and notice that I answered your questions.

"Come back in attack" ?

Mate, you insinuated that as an atheist, I ought not to post here(1), that I post here to justify my own position(2) and that I attack Christians more often than engage in any other activity(3).

To back myself up, your quotes:

(1) "1. Why are there so many atheist posts/threads in R/T?
There is an Atheist Forum."

Given that there is forums for many beliefs, and that all those beliefs are found here, you are calling for different treatment of people based on their belief, which is discrimination.

That is an insult.

(2) "2. Do atheists post in R/T simply a mode to justify their own position?
Seems to me, justification would be far more likely in the Atheist Forum, as opposed to R/T. "

Given that justifying oneself is something one does to move from an unsupported position to a supported, you are telling us that you think atheists are insecure.

That is an insult.

(3) "Why is it that Christianity is the target of the vast majority of of these posts?"

This is the worst by a long shot.

You waltz in here and tell me that I spend my time attacking Christians?

Let me put it like this:

You are telling people that they don't really contribute to the forum, and that for them their main priority is to attack Christians.

That is not telling people what they believe any more, it is telling them, based solely on your chosen interpretation of some posts, the very way we think.

That is an insult.

So, reply to my first post, then explain why you accuse others of bieng insulting, while you stir up this kind of trouble.

If you call this an attack, refuse to answer, and simply restate 'we need to not antagonise each other' or simply some variant, while posting this stuff, you will sink a very long way in my eyes.

I wrote you a response. At least answer, rather than label what I say 'an unprovoked attack' and try to invalidate me.

Thanks for your time.

[neebob]

82. There you go with the moderator thing again.

Why do you do that? Other moderators who post in this forum don't continually call attention to the fact that they're moderators. It's still called flamebait and thread hijacking, Rasputin - even if you're a moderator, even if you say you're not doing it as a moderator.

[rasputin1952]

85. I do that specifically because I have been

called on that several times, and there should be no question as to my sincerity in my posting.

It is often difficult to post something, and NOT have people think you are baiting them, this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation." In several posts, it was alluded that I might delete posts I don't agree with, and that is patently a false accusation. So, to ensure members that I would not delete posts, or "go fishing", I posted that caveat.

[Ron Green]

87. Thanks for your sincerity, Rasputin. But the game here is the game.

If you see the "belief/non-belief" issue as a continuum, which I do, and try to discuss accordingly, you'll be soon cast into the bin of "not understanding" the unique and fragile position of the atheists.

When I was an atheist, many years ago, I argued from just such a place: There's no common ground here; you must never impugn the purity of my non-belief.

[rasputin1952]

90. Already there...My concern is to open dialog, and most do not wish

to discuss how or why they got to the position they hold, nor do people wish to justify their positions; it is all about "attack and discredit"...:(

I understand that many feel that all of this is re-hashing old stuff, but that is not the purpose of dialog and discussion...it is the thin veil of defensive mode, everything is an attack, and it all depends on whether one can discredit the other.

I look for answers, and I find them in places most people would not look, nor are they aware that they exist. The minds of people is one of these, and to better understand myself, as well as others, I feel that it is important to get ideas from all over the spectrum. So far, I've been called, "ignorant", "stupid", "foolish", a "bigot" and "intolerant", as well other things. Strangely, I see myself as the complete opposite of all of those things...:)

FWIW, I believe as I do from experiences I've had in the past, from things I've read and encountered, from discussions I've had with people of all major religions, (and a few minor ones), from people who are agnostic and from atheists. In almost every case, the dialog has been civil...until I came to R/T and asked a few questions, go figure.

On the brighter side, I've had a couple of pretty good responses from atheists here, and that makes me feel pretty good about the chances of a real dialog...:D

I encourage people of all walks of life to look into why they think as they do, and I encourage intelligent discourse as well. It is far too easy to just lash out w/o substance, I guess it makes some feel good, but unfortunately, it bolsters the notion that some are simply intolerant to the views of others.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

92. Amazing...rather than post something of substance, you compare me

to Limbaugh.

My point is proven.

On edit: Go ahead and post how and why you came to your conclusions. If there is a reasonable response, it will be discussed, but other than that, I have only received a few reasonable responses. To those who discuss things, I have nothing but the utmost respect, for those who refuse to do so, I see nothing but spurious accusations and attempts at bypassing discussion through attacking others in the hopes that they will scare people into a corner, and then declare "victory". How sad.

[cosmik debris]

93. You still aren't listening to what you have been told.

"Go ahead and post how and why you came to your conclusions"

You have been told that no conclusions have been reached, yet you still want me to tell you how I came to my conclusions. Even the simplest concepts seem to elude you. You will not accept any reply that doesn't fit into your frame.

Here are three things that you need to recognize:

I do not believe.

I make no assumptions.

I reach no conclusions.

As long as you keep contradicting me on those things, you can't possibly understand atheism because you are being defensive about your frame rather than trying to understand another way of thinking.

Oh, and by the way, the comparison to Limbaugh is valid. If you don't like it, quit acting like Limbaugh.

[rasputin1952]

94. If you do not believe, you have come to a conclusion based on an

assumption...how can you say anything other than that?

To do otherwise makes no sense at all.

I have been accused of missing the obvious, and yet you post the obvious and say it isn't so, how can you justify that?

You may not see this as a serious query, but I do, that is why I am asking for justification. To just say, "It ain't so", doesn't really satisfy the intellectual aspect.

[cosmik debris]

95. Ok, I will assume that you don't understand

How insulting you are being. But I can't answer your question until you tell me why NOT believing requires a conclusion and an assumption. In my universe disbelief requires nothing. That is what distinguishes it from belief.

Is it not possible in your universe to disbelieve without making assumptions? Is withholding judgment the same as reaching a conclusion?

That is certainly not the case in my universe.

[rasputin1952]

97. I am not being insulting, I am being rational...

At some time or another, you had to have heard about some form of deity. Bearing that in mind, you now have a choice, (actually several choices if you have heard of several deities).

At the point where you are going to decide whether you believe in a deity, I shall assume that you have looked at the situation, and have thought about this, you make the assumption, (as there is no +/- that there is no deity), you come to a conclusion.

This is fine, it is a choice you have made, it is a personal choice, based on assumption that came to a conclusion that works for you. There was no choice before you heard about a possible deity; there was, in that case, no choice to be made, as you had no knowledge that one might exist. A choice must be made with knowledge of two or more factors, without any factors, what choice is there to make?

Now, with the choice made, and with no way to either prove the existence of a deity or disprove the existence of a deity, the only justification for the given position is based on a personal faith that the choice made is correct. This faith has nothing to do with religion, it is a personal faith one has that they made the right choice after making the requisite reasoning to come to a conclusion.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Conclusions

When a salad dressing living with a bottle of beer beams with joy, a self-loathing cloud formation takes a coffee break. If a load bearing warranty graduates from the briar patch, then a bullfrog toward a wedge earns frequent flier miles. Most people believe that a flavored hell beyond a tomato makes love to the crane living with a cough syrup, but they need to remember how barely a chain saw near a cab driver trembles. A power drill defined by the blood clot is polka-dotted.

[rasputin1952]

100. Another spurious post...

I didn't expect much else.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Conclusion:

The so-called hydrogen atom secretly eats some salty insurance agent. Another feline maelstrom requires assistance from a barely psychotic tuba player. Sometimes a fairy hibernates, but a spider always caricatures an Alaskan cab driver! Furthermore, the blood clot hesitates, and some fraction over the bottle of beer plays pinochle with a hydrogen atom near the ball bearing. The parking lot usually makes love to the hydrogen atom about a fraction.

[charlie]

104. Oh shit, lemme get my beret and bongoes

Ginsberg can go suck eggs, you're the chick with the mostest, bay-bee!

[beam me up scottie]

105. !

[neebob]

101. Oh, poor innocent you.

You jump on a thread, change the subject to one you know will get a rise out of many of the atheists - in this case, about seeking justification. Then you play dumb and talk all around the problem you created as if you don't know what it is. It's tiresome.

Back to the moderator thing. How come it doesn't happen to Varkam?

[rasputin1952]

108. Why should it? We are two entirely different people with two

people w/two different posting styles and questions/answers.

I came in and asked some questions, I didn't see but two viable answers, the rest has been the usual silly stuff that creates flamewars. I didn't come here to start a flamewar, I came for answers; apparently, honest intellectual answers are hard to come by.

I hold no animosity, but apparently others do. I guess that is a natural reaction in some scenarios. it is easy to attempt to "corner" someone and then claim some kind of "victory", but there is nothing there. if you cannot substantiate why you believe or disbelieve, if that suits you better, then posts should be rejected as spurious at best.

No one here would accept me saying, "That's the way it is", so why should I? I would not even try to state something like that in the first place. i don't speak for anyone but myself, and when I ask a serious question, I believe that a serious answer should be forthcoming. If, like anyone else, i can't see the logic or reason behind the answer, I will dig a little deeper...that is how people learn...no one can learn anything if there is not dialog.

Look at it this way, would YOU accept what someone said sim,ply because they said it? Neither would I, that is why I have explained my position on several occasions, and no one has yet refuted me. The attempts have been there, but I have to say, they were half hearted attempts at justifying a position that should be relatively easy to justify with just a little thought.

I am open to explanations, but others should be open to having those explanations analyzed. It has been said in this thread, that I am "stupid", "ignorant" and "intolerant", I will leave the first two alone as they are subjective, but intolerant is the least of my vices. If I were intolerant, I would be taking the same stances as those who see fit to post silly diatribes instead of rational thought processes.

OK, if that is the game to be played, and the flimsiest defenses of positions are to be taken, that is fine. I'll be here when someone wants to talk rationally and put their arguments forward in a clear and concise fashion.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Right. We atheists don't know how to define our atheism. We're too stupid.

Your psychobabble is about as "clear and concise" as w's speeches.

And he thinks he's rational too.

[rasputin1952]

111. Judging by tour previous responses, I do think you have a problem

defining your stance, concerning what i have posted.

I can live w/that, it's not the end of the world, it just shows me that discourse is not the objective, and futile attacks are.

Look over the posts, I contend that afterthought processes have been involved, and a decision has been made, one must act on a personal faith to uphold their conviction. it has little to do w/religion, but has a lot to do with how one justifies their position. Without a personal faith that the decision was correct after deliberation, and without empirical proof to the contrary, only faith can uphold the decision. This is simply because there are no "facts" that hold up the position on its own. This would apply to any scenario where there is no evidence to draw one to a different conclusion.

Tell me where I am wrong, and please be specific.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Your dime store analysis is boring, repetitive and incredibly ignorant.

As soon as you let us define your beliefs, I'll let you know when it's okay for you to do the same.

Until then, stop calling me a liar and stop calling me stupid.

And most importantly, stop ignoring the correct definition of atheism and redefining it to suit your own agenda.


Trying to explain this to you is like trying to have a discussion with Donald Rumsfeld.


Was that definitive enough for you?


Just so there's no more misunderstanding on your part, let's review:



Telling people what they believe is ignorant and unenlightened.

It's insulting and arrogant.

And intolerant and offensive.



If I left anything out, perhaps my fellow atheists could add to my list.

[Evoman]

114. I don't think you can understand....thats not an insult.

" I contend that afterthought processes have been involved, and a decision has been made, one must act on a personal faith to uphold their conviction. "

NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE! See, thats the point. Do you have to have FAITH that Zeus doesn't exist. Do you have to have FAITH that my talking ass pimple exists? NO! You simply say, "Let me know when you have evidence of your ass pimple, then I will believe in him. Until then, I will hold on the decision". Thats the weak atheist position. It requires no faith. None. No faith. At all. Really. It doesn't.

"it has little to do w/religion, but has a lot to do with how one justifies their position. "

You don't have to justify a position, if you are the null hypothesis. Thats the reality. I don't understand how this is a difficult concept.

"Without a personal faith that the decision was correct after deliberation, and without empirical proof to the contrary, only faith can uphold the decision."

Wrong. Again, no decision has been made.

" This is simply because there are no "facts" that hold up the position on its own. This would apply to any scenario where there is no evidence to draw one to a different conclusion."

No, no, no. The only fact that is relevant is that no one has any evidence that god exists. I don't need facts to hold up my side. Just as you don't need any facts to not have belief in my talking ass pimple or Zeus. You just don't have belief until someone proves it to you. Having facts that seem to dispute gods existence are gravy, but not necessary.

Now, I'm slightly different than some of the atheists here, because I have felt myself being tugged to take a stronger position. However, I still find it difficult to say that there is no god somewhere, because of the "faith" implication....because there is a part of me abhors coming to a decision without all the facts. If I did assert strongly that there is no god, then I may fall into your Atheism as a Faith category (although I hold that Faith is the wrong word..maybe belief is a bit more relevant, as faith has religious conotations).

Look, the reason I can't be angry at you is that I know your not capable of understanding "lack of belief". I really don't think you can get it, no matter how much we try to explain it. Because once you are convinced that your god is real, coming to understand the atheism position of null hypothesis is probably very difficult. This is not meant to insult you...but you won't ever understand us, because your pre-conceived notions impede you.

I have one more suggestion. From the very first, you have hijacked my thread. I posted this a serious topic. Have you read one of the stories on the link I provided? Have you even tried to understand? Please stop starting these arguments...how can you not see that you are insulting atheists here? You may not understand why they are insulted, but that does not mean you can't understand that THEY ARE being insulted. They have told you so.

Now I am fairly upset that nobody addressed the OP and that you have drawn first blood in this flame war. Please refrain from fanning the flames.

[beam me up scottie]

119. I think you need to write a play starring your Talking Ass Pimple.

I'd like to hear from him.

[Evoman]

121. He is full of wisdom.

Talking Ass Pimple: A scene from my new play "And the new God Rose (from my ass)"

Scene opens on Evoman: He is absentmindedly scratching his rear, when he hears a yelp:

Evoman: What the fuck was that?

Ass Pimple: It is I...I have come to deliver the news.

Evoman: *Puts his ass to the mirror* Whaaaa....my ass is talking!

AP: No..quit looking at your crack..I'm over hear *it throbs conspiciously*

Evoman: But your just an ass pimple with no mouth. How are you talking to me"

AP: Will you stop worrying about the logistics of it. Just listen to my words, my son.

Evoman: Yes, I will listen....don't really have a choice. You hurt too much to scratch off.

AP: Enough! I AM "I AM:. I'm the alpha and the omega. I have a message you must share with the world!

Evoman: Fine, fine. Go ahead.

AP: You must tell the world that I am the only god. You must use my existence to cast doubt into the believers of the orthodox religions.

Evoman: How the hell am I going to do that!

AP: I have an advantage that no other religion has..I can convince people with no faith.

Evoman: Oh?

AP: Well...People can actually see me...I mean, I am a talking ass pimple.

Evoman: Wow..actual evidence. That sure beats the other guy.

AP: Yep. Now pass the word.

Evoman: I will!


Next Scene: Evoman bumps into his friends Steam Me Up Loudly, Blotsky, and Ras-Butane.

Evoman: Hey guys! Have you heard the news!

SMUL: Hey Evoman, I find you incredibly hot and want to have your babies.

Evoman: Enough of these advances, Steam...I want to talk about something serious right now!

Blotsky: *BURRRRP*

Ras-Butane: Let me guess, you want to talk about my secret recipe again. I told you I'm not giving it to you.

Evoman: NO! I don't want to talk about your recipe.

Ras-Butane: Yes you do, I know you do.

Evoman: NO! I don't.

Ras-Butane: Yes, you want to talk about my recipe.

Evoman: Will you please quit telling me what I'm thinking about. Its about my ass pimple not about your recipe

Ras-butane: Whats your ass pimple have to do with my recipe?

Evoman: Gah! *pushes Ras-butane into the lake* okay guys...have I got something interesting to show YOU!!!

*to be continued*

[neebob]

103. Speak for yourself, please.

Maybe you had a fragile position when you were an atheist, but I don't, and I don't see that many of my fellow atheists do either. I see them getting irritated when theists try to tell them what they believe or what their motivation is - and that, I believe, comes from a very fragile position. It's called projecting.

[Ron Green]

106. You seem to speak for me readily enough.

It's just tiresome to read the cynical whining, when Rasputin has made some reasonable statements. It's the same old shit.

[neebob]

107. You're the one who said you argued from a fragile position

when you were an atheist. My position is not fragile. In fact, I'm tempted to argue with my fellow atheists who include me when they say we don't assert that no gods exist. And I can't believe more of them don't call Rasputin on what he's actually doing instead of engaging him on his statements. Their reasonableness is a matter of opinion - kind of a continuum, if you like.

[Evoman]

67. Did anyone even READ the link.

Instead of trying to understand, we again have people start up the same bullshit.

READ THE FUCKING LINK!

Thank you. And have a nice day ;)

[NMMNG]

75. Are you bloody insane?

Why read something and try to understand when it's so much easier to just fall back on your preconceived notions?

[Evoman]

77. Unfortunately, I am one of those caricature atheists

I was a good, loving, god-fearing christian. And then a priest diddled me. And then I started to hate god...and I says to him...I says..God, listen up. I HATTTTEEE YOU. How could you forsake me.

God and me conversed that night, and it went something like this

God: I did not forsake you

Evoman: Who the hell is that in my head

God: It is I, your god.

Evoman: No it aint. Its just my inside voice.

God: My son, it is I.

Evoman: If its really god, then I shouldnt be able to make you say things in my head.

God: Um...what?

Evoman:I shouldn't be able to make you say "I am a pantywaist piece of shite god"

God:...I am a pantywaist piece of shite god....

Evoman: See, I told you are my inside voice!


After that conversation, as soon as I became an atheist, I killed a man because of my lack of morality. And then I decided to start a Atheist faith church where I took the atheist scriptures literally. I had become a fundie athiest. Then I decided that it would be fun to hate and insult christians. So what I did was I started a long term relationship with my christian girlfriend and then hated her too, and insulted her as well. And she loved me for it.

*SARCASM*

[NMMNG]

79. I always love your plays

:rofl:

[and-justice-for-all]

96. ALLAH is GOD, the same God Christians believe in....

There isnt any difference between Allah and the Jeudo/Christian God; its the same one!

I am an Atheist because I dont buy into the superstitous crap that has been polluting society for far to long. The ideaology of "God" is just that, and idea or something to get people by because they cant wrap their head around the questions of Why are here? How did we get here? What created the universe? etc. So, people use the layman way and just say "God made it". I disagree with that short hand misconception, The Universe has always been here and will always be here.

[Evoman]

117. Thank you for your reply....

did you know that your only one of three people who actually responded to the OP. Thank you for your story, rant-y as it is ;)

[beam me up scottie]

118. I will respond to your op, Evo.

Thanks for posting.

I don't always agree with the other atheists that post there, but I do appreciate hearing about different experiences.

I have always been an atheist and it's difficult for me to understand faith, so these stories are opening my eyes as well.

[Evoman]

122. Actually, a lot of those stories actually helped

me understand the mindset of christians as well. Its hard for a christian, I think, to explain their thoughts to atheists who don't share their experience. I also think its difficult for christians to talk about their religious doubts, which the christion-deconvert can do more easily. Understanding faith is easier for me, when someone who shares my thought patterns attempts to explain it.

Its really a shame that this thread turned to a flame war, because I really think the various groups here could have learned something.

[Broken_Hero]

123. Locking

"This discussion has veered far off-course."