Atheism Handbook Found

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (171 posts)

0
just_curiousposted 13 years ago
Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive and somewhat outlandish I find some of the arguments to be against God. I couldn't understand them so I went in search of the answers. Apparently some are reading from a handbook that lists the top four reason for disbelief.

As a public service I have decided to share them here. This is probably not news to most of you who have had to fend off these outlandish questions, but once I realized how little thought goes into the nay say posts, I thought I should share the information found.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL- Simply, 'What about all the starving children?' I find this argument to be most offensive. Since it ignores the fact that we are responsible to help our fellow man.How this could be used for an argument against God is a mystery.

THE PARADOX OF THE STONE - This one would be funny, if not for the fact that someone would actually consider it to be an arguument.

GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL CRUTCH- Again, funny. Theists posting appear to be emotionally stable. Very rarely do I consider them in need of a crutch, so the argument appears invalid.

CHRISTIANITY IS OFFENSIVELY EXCLUSIVE- I suppose that might be true, but I find it difficult to understand how it is more exclusive than atheism. It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Do any theists consider these to be valid arguments?
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  what's the paradox of the stone?
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry. This is asking if god can make a rock to big to pick up.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh, I was wondering if you were referring to the sheila rock thingy on Irish churches (that had exposed female genitals)
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, but that does seem more odd than the paradox question. Do you know why they have them? I was in Ireland a couple of years ago and I didn't notice. It would have been nice to ask a local that question.
  reply report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Same reason they have gargoyles/grotesques on Notre Dame de Paris. Tradition. Nothing sinister about it.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. I was curious if she had another take on it.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  one could say all religion is tradition
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are exactly right. The rituals the group as a whole impose on others is little more than that. This has nothing to do with the core belief a person has. It actually hinders the search for understanding in many ways.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  can you honestly say your 'core beliefs' aren't really traditions?
  reply report
2. 60
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  1. The problem of evil is a contradiction problem. The current view is that it's our responsability to take care of eachother, however, the god of the bible is very active on the destiny of humanity. The great flood was intentended by him to kill most living things. Is that not evil? If he once influenced our own enviroment to kill almost everyone why doesn't he do the opposite now or always, in a global miracle (instead of catastrophe) to save thousands?
  
  If you believe in god as in the bible or other holy book, it's assumed you believe in a god who participates in the course of humanity, otherwise it'd be foolish to worship him and pray.
  
  2. I don't think this is much of an argument (never seen it used as one) but more of a puzzling question.
  
  3. Your point makes no sense. People who use crutches are stable while they use them, that's what they're for. They become unstable when you take them away. Therefore, the fact that someone is emotionally stable believing in god could mean that they're using religion as a crutch. This is not an argument against the general concept of god, it's an argument against the fact that you feel god is considered to some people proof enough that it exists.
  
  4. You find it difficult to understand because you have a false idea about atheism.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you could take a moment to enlighten me. I think atheism is simply non belief in the idea of any form of deity, at it's simplest.
  
  You cannot prove, or disprove, God on a personal level. Why would we argue that point? I see these examples as created to stop a conversation; not disprove God.
  
  Using them to stop the Jehovah Witness at the door sounds like a fun way to spend an afternoon, but not valid arguments that could be used to make someone rethink such a personal decision, or one's that are worthy of dialogue. I'm simply surprised they are used so repeatedly.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is because you turn a blind eye to the damage believers in a god do to us and our society.
  
  How funny that you think because you cannot disprove something - believing in the something should carry equal weight to not believing in the something. I bet you don't use this logic when deciding whether to leave a building by a third floor window or the front door.
  
  Tell you what - you stop claiming there is a god - I stop making fun of your irrational and impossible belief.
  
  Deal?
  
  All though - let us be honest here - you do not actually want answers to this question because you ignore them when they are given.
  
  What you are really wanting to do is convince us that your ridiculous belief in the Star Goat is perfectly valid and no more or less rational than those who say they do not believe in the Star Goat.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No Mark, I think you read too much into the point. I have neither the ability or disprove anything. Not interested in trying to. People are going to formulate an opinion by themselves.
  
  Religion can, and does, cause problems. The fact that they are not the only problems in the world is irrelevant. These problems do need to be addressed.
  
  Posts such as yours do not, in my opinion, open a dialogue to address them. Ridiculing people will not change their actions or beliefs. I'm simply confused as to what you are attempting to accomplish.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am attempting to remove religion from our society. You apparently agree that this is a desirable thing and also agree that religion is harmful.
  
  You also are religious and need to propagate that. This means a strong internal contradiction that requires a good dose of denial. You are prepared to go to great lengths to do this. You even claim that your public beliefs are actually personal - and are prepared to deceive your self in this matter.
  
  I am pointing that out in the hope that - one day - people will keep their religious beliefs "personal" instead of public - like yours are.
  
  I am certainly open to suggestions as to how I might help facilitate this, but having tried explaining the bible, rational discussion, reason and logic - believers tell me (as you have done) that I simply do not understand and "god" is outside of logic, reason and rational discussion - I feel my only option is ridicule.
  
  As it seems to do not disagree with my goal - merely my methods - I am genuinely interested to hear how you suggest we might accomplish the goal of removing religion.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not attempting to propagate religion, silly. You can't stop the worship of God. I'm attempting to propagate sanity. Crazy idea in a crazy world. I've always liked to fight for the underdog though. Call me crazy.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be silly. You have already called yourself crazy - why do I need to do it? Your powers of denial are quite astounding though.
  
  Little wonder your belief causes so many wars.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You, as always, are a funny guy. Hey, I've read through this thread and I'm pretty sure I was honest, didn't make any statements you can change your opinion of my lack of christian philosophy on.
  
  You should probably go in search in some other threads. I'm sure I stumbled somewhere. I like being spotted. Keeps me thinking.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Awww how sweet. I love it when you are condescending.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, why the sad face? Was that sarcasm?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Crikey! I forgot religionists are missing the irony gene.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good one!
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would say 'wipe that smirk off your face' but I have no idea what you're laughing about. Would you care to expand on your point?
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey. Happy Valentine's Day. Pcunix says you all hate me, but that's OK. OH, and he says none of you celebrate. That's OK too.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see ridicule as an option. I see it is unavoidable.
  
  When people say ridiculous things (<-- ridic-ulous), what else can be done but to point out that they make no sense?
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not a sports fan. I don't like rules, I don't like competition, I hate how professional sports are overpayed, etc. Does that make me an exclusive group of people who share their dislike towards sports? I don't like lettuce, is that another group? I don't exclude anyone for liking sports. If the subject comes into play, I will argue against sport because it is my opinion. What else should I do? Stay quiet and nod in false agreement?
  
  In principle, being an atheist is not a collective group per se. Movements against religion are no different than movements against slavery, death penalty, or any other doctrines that once were the norm and are now not accepted.
  
  You can prove god resides in the brain. You can artificially produce experiences of god with a machine. And as I stated before, this doesn't disprove the existence of god but it hands other possible and more likely explanations as to why would a particular person believe in god. You don't need to absolutely without a doubt destroy one theory to make another one valid. The Earth could very well be flat and resting on a turtle's back, but that would imply a huuuuuge conspiracy theory beyond belief. which makes the idea of the world being round much, much more likely.
  reply report
3. 71
  Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Since it ignores the fact that we are responsible to help our fellow man."
  
  That doesn't excuse God from inaction. An All Powerful being inherently possesses All Responsibility. You're also ignoring that most Christians claim that God heals sick people on a regular basis and performs miracles and blesses people. If God is willing to get rid of all evil than why are there still parents lowering their children into the cold ground after their kid loses a battle with cancer? If he's all powerful than he must chose not to act. Again ALL POWER = ALL RESPONSIBILITY. This argument stems from Epicurus, its been around for centuries, it doesn't originate with the "handbook" you've found.
  
  I was never fond of the rock analogy, I only rarely bring it up with theists, so I wouldn't count it as one of the main atheist arguments.
  
  God as an emotional crutch isn't an argument, its an observation. Many people do use God as a crutch, I know that when I was a Christian and I was depressed I would remind myself that God was out there somewhere and loved me and nothing else mattered. Rather than solving my own problems I could call on God.
  
  "It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black."
  
  Atheism is merely a lack of belief, it is no more exclusive than theism is, meaning not at all. All babies, for instance, are atheists, as they have no belief in god and that's the definition of atheism. There are also Buddhist atheists, atheists who believe in ghosts and aliens, even some who reject Evolution. So atheism is not exclusive, all one has to do is lack belief in god(s).
  reply report
4. 58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Repetitive, because believers keep repeating the same nonsensical and magical arguments over and over again.
  
  In other words, when arguments from reality are presented to you, you don't understand them. Clearly, from your OP, you aren't looking for answers as you have dismissed out of hand many answers provided to you, and instead, you have chosen to create a fallacious thread.
  
  LOL! This should be good.
  
  No mystery at all, theists love to dismiss this when they thank their gods for all their abundance, completely ignoring the plight of others. And, while this is so simple to understand, it is an utter mystery to believers. Of course, the real reason why believers dismiss it out hand and blame mankind is the fact that they will never accept their gods having these kind of faults and flaws.
  
  Considering you are dismissing out of hand that which afflicts you yourself, that would be understandable. Denial is one of the most prominent components of any believers arguments.
  
  No, Christianity is as offensive as many other religions, it is not alone in that regard. Funny how you consider the non-belief in your god offensive, but do not consider your own non-belief in all the other gods offensive. Quite funny.
  
  Of course they will. However, the definition of "valid" has been seriously warped and twisted in this regard.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't consider non belief in god offensive, I consider it offensive when belief is considered offensive.
  
  Denial does not appear, to me, to be exclusive to theists.
  
  As usual, your input falls firmly in the camp of disdainful, without sufficient backup for your words. Not incredibly helpful, but thanks for putting your penney's worth in.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is it with you and beelzedad? Are you a couple? I swear this is the oddest thing.
  
  I promise, I think this was the last reply to comments he's made to me. Stop chasing around to protect him from the increasingly insulted theist. You two enjoy your evening.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I hope you are at least amused yourself with your last post.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, I was trying to alleviate any concerns you appear to be having tonight. Why would you consider that me amusing myself? I was attempting to be sensitive.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Alleviate my concerns about you. Amusing to say the least.
  
  I have no concerns about you and never have, which I guess you would obviously mistaken for something else.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting to note that rather than dealing with the subject matter, you continue to focus on the members here, almost as if you were paranoid about something. Is that the case? Do you feel there is a conspiracy here? LOL!
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. I see no conspiracy, what I do see is something else entirely.
  reply report
  58
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, something entirely different from what we are writing.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you say so.
  reply report
5. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is great! And as a Christian, I happened to write a hub addressing at least two of these top four reasons for disbelief. Please read it. I appreciate the time you've taken to share here. And follow me if you'd like to. Thanks for starting the great conversation!
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks. I'll definitely read your hub.
  reply report
6. 61
  Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  just_curious, No, their arguments are not valid against God.
  reply report
7. 56
  stoneyyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  [sigh]
  There's no atheist handbook. The 'lack of thought' you mention is on the believers side.
  
  WOC's blanket statement; "No, their arguments are not valid against God." is an excellent example of this.
  
  NOTE: I'm not knocking WOC. Her viewpoint is her own.
  
  What's brought up mainly deals with the 'Holy Bible', the omni characteristics, and the statements of theists- "God is Love" and other drivel.
  
  Theists are atheist with all the deity[ies] they lack belief in. Atheists don't give the particular theists deity[ies] special treatment.
  
  The Problem of Evil is a light-weight counter against "God is Good" and "God Loves us each and every one" as well as the promises concerning prayer, et al.,. God watches each starving child die {omnipresent}. Not only that, but the child's death was scripted {Omniscient}. There are ramifications, and repercussions, to stated attributes as well as being the sole source 'Manufacturer'.
  
  You're welcome to find that particular argument offensive-as well as myriad others. [shrug]
  
  The Paradox of the Stone is accurate. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. Let me explain. This one deals with the Omnipotent attribute. Omni=all. Such is all or nothing. There is no in-between.
  
  Omnipotent=all powerful. The stone paradox illuminates the internal contradiction of the stated attribute; meaning it fails under the weight of its internal contradiction(s).
  
  God is an emotional crutch. Again, you didn't understand it, so I'll explain {I've not heard emotional crutch before}. During a highly emotional event/threat environment the theist may (individually dependent) call upon their deity for help. This may bring the emotional level(s) down to a point where they may be able to find a route through the situation.
  
  --JC
  CHRISTIANITY IS OFFENSIVELY EXCLUSIVE- I suppose that might be true, but I find it difficult to understand how it is more exclusive than atheism. It appears to me that the pot is calling the kettle black. --JC
  
  Offensively Exclusive? {This one is new to me, too}. I'd be interested as to what site you got this from. I can see several different ways it can be utilized.
  
  I'll give a reply a shot via the shortest reply avenue. Either a person is Christian or they are not. If one is a Christian they may, or may not, end up in Hell for eternity. If one is not a Christian, they will end up in Hell for eternity.
  
  There are a multitude of religions which promise dire eternal consequences for not worshiping them. This is a problem for Christians-the 'Wrong Hell' factor.
  
  There's nothing exclusive about the lack of theism. If a person is a theist-fine. If a person isn't a theist-fine. If a person is a theist-they're not going to be 'roasted for eternity' or roasted at all.
  
  Let me remind you: Theists are atheist with regard to all the deity[ies] they lack belief in. Atheists don't give the particular theists' deity[ies] special treatment.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I understand why atheists use these as an argument, but that is all it will ever be. You can't prove it either way. I posted this basically to share the information. Seems silly to keep rehashing the same thing repeatedly. To me, anyway.
  reply report
  56
  stoneyyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then Xians should stop with the same ignoring points raised which show the problems with what Xians constantly natter.
  
  If you folks are going to continue your tactics, then people are going to continue to show where what you folks natter is terminally worthless and erroneous.
  
  The Xian mind numbingly boring red herring about 'proof' illustrates acknowledgement of the problems the replies made are accurate. If the replies weren't accurate-Xians certainly would be demonstrating where the error(s) were.
  
  There are Xians I have a lot of respect for. You, and several others here, are not among them. These latter Xians are to be, imo, pitied as they can't even recognize opposition points raised. These points must be hand waved away.
  
  I've made these same points several times since I've been here. More than likely a couple of times to your posts. I have yet to get a reply with substance.
  
  Immediately below is your opening paragraph for this thread:
  
  "Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive and somewhat outlandish I find some of the arguments to be against God."
  
  Once again, I took the time to make a solid reply. Once again, the reply was hand waved away-as I expected.
  
  Let me use your opening paragraph as may be seen by a person with a different viewpoint.
  
  Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive, childish, irrational and highly amusing I find the nattering about a fictional stone and bronze deity construct called 'God'.
  
  No matter how horrifying the actions of this fantasy figure is it matters not to those afflicted with this toddler level malaise. No reason, objective evidence, logic tracks, affects the continuous metaphorical train wreck.
  
  Its fascinating to observe in all its horrific insanity. Even those who have continually been maligned by this insanity claim that said 'entity' "loves them" {the degree of malignment may or may not apply to a Xian who reads this post .}
  
  If one chooses to 'credit' any successes to said 'entity' then they had best 'credit' it for all the failures, too.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey stony. The aliens have not landed yet. I suppose, when they do, they'll want to feel persecuted too. Must be some chemical in the air here on planet earth. I don't know.
  
  But whoever the xians are, say hey the next time they beam you up.
  reply report
  81
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A very well thought out post. I know you don't expect a sensible reply though!
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Are you serious? Or were you just being nice. Nice is good. No problem with that, but I thought the post was a little odd.
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 13 years ago
I don't even consider you OP an argument. I'm not an atheist or a theist.

Those who believe in a god are selfish. Plain and simple. A little irony thrown in- they do not see their own selfishness.

As for the "atheist handbook", you've found nothing, but your own opinion and I'm very surprised you even figured out where your own opinion was.

Religious belief- irrational and destructive. (example: this thread)

End of story.
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for posting Cags.
  reply report
2. 0
  Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting choice of words to say that the religious are selfish. Obvioulsy you were unaware of the fact that the largest portion of charity in the world comes through religious organizations.
  
  I wonder how much money the freedom from religion foundation has given to the poor. I bet it's a big old goose egg.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mostly giving to churches.. and to missionaries.
  reply report
3. 56
  stoneyyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Those who believe in a god are selfish. Plain and simple. A little irony thrown in- they do not see their own selfishness."
  
  Indeed. After all, the universe rotates around each and every one of these folks. The prime goal is to obtain the 'prize' of eternal life in 'Heaven.' There isn't anything, or anyone, they won't sacrifice in the pursuit of this booby prize. And, yet, they insist they're 'humble.'
  reply report
59
stilljustwonderinposted 13 years ago
There ya go. Figure that one out. Cags said we are selfish. You forgot that one.

To answer your question, no. Their arguments are not valid. I have posted articles for them about how the medical supplies and food that are being sent to the needy are being stolen, to be told it is all lies. They can not understand that God works thru people, unfortunately so does Satan.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I said selfish.
  
  Those who have a belief in a god are selfish. If you would like me to explain, I shall-
  
  Your purpose in life is to serve and obey a god. You do so, to have a place in an afterlife. You choose to be selfish.
  
  The highest purpose for any human being to have is to put themselves after humankind. Not above humankind.
  
  Any purpose that isn't for the benefit of humankind, is selfish.
  
  Plain and simple.
  reply report
  59
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Selfish would be if we were trying to keep others from God. We aren't doing that. We can't make any one believe in God. All we can do is pray for them and leave it up to God to do the rest.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for putting your two cents worth in. I do have a question, maybe you could answer. I agree with what you said about not being able to make any one believe. Why do you think some of the atheist posters are so radical in trying to make us not believe? They seem, at times, more zealous than any tent revival preacher.
  reply report
  59
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All I could possibly do is take a guess. Some times I try to put myself in some one elses place to try to understand how they feel or think, but, I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I can't imagine not doing so. I can't think of anything off hand that I don't believe in.
  
  My guess would be that they have had bad experiences with believers. Maybe some one kept pushing them, which would only push them away.
  Why they would care that we believe and want to change our beliefs? I would need to know them personally to take a good guess. We know that Satan also works thru people. He wants to win the souls of the believers.
  The Bible does tell us that in the last days these things would happen.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your guess would be wrong.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  May I?
  
  Generally speaking ---
  An atheist, as the name suggests, is a meme of a former theistic approach to either lifestyle or ideology based on "why" we exist, be it Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhism, what-have-you. It is from such previous beliefs that atheists firmly and "religiously" denounce their former indulgence. As i have reasoned often, atheism is an angered teenager, who --by their own admission-- consider the theology they engaged --at any level-- insufficient. Insufficient at providing an absolution for their behavior, mentality or progressive attitude toward a desired effect.
  
  They are acutely zealous because within them is an unsatisfied query. A Query that their teachers of this practice were unable/unwilling to provide a provincial (fashionable) and conclusive solace to a passionate --but useless-- humanism philosophy.
  
  Such "radical" behavior is a result of the aforementioned and the addition of suggestive ideologies that also do not provide but at the same time attempt to provide an escape of response, responsibility and a temporal provision of comfort/satisfaction.
  
  To everything there is an equal or opposing action/reaction.
  This is the mind of a teenager, sorting out their position and establishing their condition.
  Sadly, the result --as with their former indulgence -- is assimilation into an identical but polar expression of the same originating ideology. Alas, not one atheist can provide validity of experience --from their former que or present one --and so resort to tormenting themselves by lashing out --non violently of course-- at their post-relata (via cynicism, rudeness, quotes from their former theistic texts, etc.)
  
  And ironically, they are as good at preaching as the preachers they once viewed in high regard...
  
  James.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well said.
  reply report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Alas, not one atheist can provide validity of experience."
  
  Would you mind explaining how would you expect anyone to provide validity in such way? How can you experience the non-existence of god? or anything at all for that matter.
  
  If atheists are teens, then theists are kids who still think they're the center of the world, craving to feel special and be recognized by a parent-figure.
  
  As annoying as teens can be, it's a part of becoming mature and letting go of something, realizing that the world is not made for us, and that mommy and daddy are not that great, and are not going to be there forever.
  
  Perhaps atheist rebellion is a necessity to enter adulthood and stop depending so much on someone else looking after us.
  
  Another similarity between theism and childhood is the fact that kids are not aware of their own eventual death until they grow up.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wouldn't mind at all, Spookyfox.
  
  I would ask the atheist to provide validity precisely as I do a theist.
  Provide validity by experience -either method of sensation or equation.
  Experience is your testimony, validity.
  
  Theists -- claim a testimony (experience) but in actuality are stealing -yes stealing- someone else testimony. If fact the one they say did such things on their behalf. According to the text, they are to overcome or did overcome their limitation (mind; ego) by the: blood of the man shed (the work) and --what closely -- the words of their testimony. Yet they use his testimony as their validity. They have no experience to provide. They have not tested the "spirit" by all available measures, methods, expressions to prove the work true.
  
  By the same token, not one atheist, during their visit to a theism has tested completely; rigorously, by all available methods-- and in most cases barely (if at all) truly engaged the theism they were apart of, to see if it was or was not true --and certainly not afterward...
  
  So, where is the testimony / experience / validity beyond books, quotes, anger, distaste, someone else experience or situation and thoughts, ego, etc. Can either a theist or atheist provide such? That is my query.
  
  James.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I can. I have personally experienced what the theists call "god" and it is no such thing. Personally. Me. Engaged and experienced. Beyond books, quotes, anger, distaste, pieces of plastic. At length. No god. No outside personality. No eternal life. No continuation of awareness. No me. Awesome and impossible to function in reality whilst experiencing it. False light - painful. Awareness - a million fold.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  by all available measures, methods, expressions ?
  Can you provide (explain) those measures, methods, expressions --so others can test them or avoid them?
  
  James.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  All? I doubt it. I don't know all available. Maybe. All roads lead to Rome so - yes - in a way. Does it make any difference if the road is African dance, yoga, martial arts or monastic life? Probably not - they seem to come from and go to the same place.
  
  Can I provide? Sure - Practice Aikido for 3 hours 5 times a week for 20 years and let me know when you are not there any more. We can move on to the next step.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My thought is this...
  
  Theist: Proving god...Can't be done...God is an experience. All the feelings in the world will not change that... I cannot let someone else feel what I feel. It just isn't possible. I completed a Hard task because god assisted.
  
  Atheist: Proving no god...Can't be done...Can't prove or disprove something not there. All the feelings receive can be explained as part of who I am...Humans have feelings...I completed a hard task because I got off my butt and figured it out.
  
  Both sides are correct as per thier beliefs or knowledge.
  
  Example: I find dark hair women "attractive"....A good male friend of mine finds himself "attractive"... We both find something "attractive" and it brings us "enjoyment" Are we wrong? No we just have different tastes in what we find "attractive"... Now when my good friend attempts to make me think that he is more "attractive" than my dark haired women, then we begin to have problems...He starts imposing in my personal life and interupts my "enjoyment" which causing me to experience something other than "enjoyment"
  
  Just my thoughts....
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You have been taught that your god can't be disproved, but that's not actually true.
  
  Theists base this argument on the logic that if you see Tommy, he definitely was there, but if you did not, he still might have been.
  
  That doesn't really apply to gods. "Tommy" is known to exist - that's why he could be there even if you didn't see him. However, if other facts are brought in (Tommy was in Paris at the time of the observation), we can indeed prove that Tommy was not there.
  
  In the same vein, when other observed facts are brought in, we can indeed prove that any god - all gods - cannot and do not exist. All are logically impossible, almost all are also logically incoherent and self-contradictory.
  
  This "you can't prove a negative"is typical lazy theist thinking.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Two things...
  One...Not my "god" and Two... I am not Theist nor Atheist... Just because I have been educated in the field doesn't mean I am something.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I just LOVE people who say they aren't anything.
  
  "Can't put a label on me!". Sure we can. Whether you like it or not.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Always fun talking with you PC. But once you assume and label you are no better than the christians...No matter what you say or claim...I enjoy the debate...but we are no longer debating...
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  DS, he cannot comprehend that possibility --as most present or post "sensationalists" or "equationists" cannot. Their "reason" is constantly necessitated. Expressed by stereotypes and labels. Else, their absolution fails simply because they cannot justify their position, mentality, ideologies or thinking without such hackneyed expressions. And that failure is obviously (and no doubt) painfully confusing to them.
  
  Think nothing of it. Just nod and smile my friend.
  
  James
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but it says it is not.
  
  Fine. But I am going to call it a duck, especially when it insists it is neither duck nor goose.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is no such thing as a duck.
  But, again you prove my point, PC, -another human label for a creature you know nothing about --you only pretend to. Welcome to your post-theism. Pretend is so much better than reality for you, isn't it. Reality bites, because reality is beyond humanistic comprehension: (example --the label of a duck applied).
  
  times up . you and your humanism just ran out. click, click. buzzzzzzzzzz.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, other than in The United States of Jesus and in the Fundies of Islam. I'd say it is theism that is dying.
  
  And good riddance.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In one respect you are correct, it is dying and you along with it. (in case you hadn't figured that out yet). So, I guess your "good" riddance is in order, yes? Perhaps the riddance of your theism and their theism is what's required to bring humanity to its knees and end this game of silliness once and for all. The end of sensation & equation. A restoration like no other man has ever encountered in his 250,000 years (according to the masculine science- Ism) or 6,000 (according to the feminine sensitive- Ism).
  Either way, enjoy the time you (plural) have left.
  Both sides of The Ism are nearly done.
  
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I hate to say it, but I almost hope you're right. It would solve a lot of problems.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  JC, may I call you JC?
  (stinks not knowing the person behind the avatar)
  You are closer to the truth than you think.
  The problem is only one: humanism.
  The expression of the problem is, well, for lack of a better word --complicated. The removal of both is just astoundingly probable and foreseeable...
  
  James.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, something's got to give. If that would make a better world, then I'd be all for it.
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Did one of your sentient rocks help you write that?
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Depends much?
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just curiosity..
  report
  74
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but it says it is not."
  Understands ducks, explains ducks, therefore, must be a duck?
  report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You need a refresher course in logic, Jeff
  report
  60
  spookyfoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again you miss my point completely.
  
  I asked how does anyone provide personal experience of a lack of something.
  
  You went on to explain how someone can experience the existence of something.
  
  Please explain this time how do you or anyone, experience the lack of elves, gods, whatever.
  
  "I would ask the atheist to provide validity precisely as I do a theist.
  Provide validity by experience -either method of sensation or equation.
  Experience is your testimony, validity."
  
  Personal experience is no proof of anything. Go to a psychiatric hospital and you'll see.
  
  "By the same token, not one atheist, during their visit to a theism has tested completely; rigorously, by all available methods-- and in most cases barely (if at all) truly engaged the theism they were apart of, to see if it was or was not true --and certainly not afterward..."
  
  So you've met all atheists in the history of humanity, good for you. There have been scientists who, by new methods (that I'd guess you haven't tried), have made people, both believers and non-believers, see images of god and have religious experiences.
  
  That assumes that every atheist used to be a theist; and that you must also dedicate fully and by all means possible in the search of unicorns, elves, fairies, Zeus, Mythras, Allah, the Loch Ness Monster, crop circles, try to be abducted by aliens, big etc. until you have an experience of the absence of them (which you must still explain how that works) in order to disregard them as fantasy?
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many of us never had any "former indulgence". We recognized the falsehood of religion from day one.
  reply report
  56
  stoneyyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  --21 days
  Generally speaking ---
  An atheist, as the name suggests, is a meme of a former theistic approach to either lifestyle or ideology based on "why" we exist, be it Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhism, what-have-you. It is from such previous beliefs that atheists firmly and "religiously" denounce their former indulgence. As i have reasoned often, atheism is an angered teenager, who --by their own admission-- consider the theology they engaged --at any level-- insufficient. Insufficient at providing an absolution for their behavior, mentality or progressive attitude toward a desired effect.
  
  They are acutely zealous because within them is an unsatisfied query. A Query that their teachers of this practice were unable/unwilling to provide a provincial (fashionable) and conclusive solace to a passionate --but useless-- humanism philosophy. --21days
  
  ROFLMAO! Gotta love theist projection. {rhetorical question alert} Have you ever considered asking a question, or three? (end alert)
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you just proved my case...
  
  ( by the way, your justification of me being a theist, proves you don't know anything I have said and how deeply "mystic" you post-theists are. You are only using your limited post-theistic drivel --the identical things I explained-- to argue with a seasoned philosopher. Better "luck" next time son. )
  
  Many thanks, enjoy your rejection --err- humanism.
  
  James.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Seasoned philosopher???
  
  Legend in your own mind.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you have no idea PC who I am or what I know.
  I have actually sat and ate with Priests (of various ideologies), Kings and Scientists alike...
  
  Now be the "good school boy" and go back to arguing with the theists you so despise --because you are one and will always be one, no matter how you try to refute it, okay?!
  
  James.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, my.
  
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You've been corrected as to your misunderstanding before.
  
  I never had any former beliefs. Many atheists never did and EVERYBODY is born an atheist.
  reply report
  74
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh yea? not trying to keep others from God huh? When my brother was sucked in to Lambs Road Church, i asked him if i could go to church with him, and he said no, because being a christian was his thing. Thank goodness he has come to his senses since then, but even though i supported his belief, he would have rather had me stay home than hear "the message"
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pink, this was not a general statement about atheists. You post your thoughts as honestly as anyone I've met. Which is, in my opinion, a good thing. You say what's on your mind.
  reply report
  74
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  stop being such a smoocher! just kidding. There is no other way for me to converse other than total honesty. Even if that means im wrong, or im being the b word.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I personally love it when people post honestly. At least I know where they are coming from. Atheism or theism is simply a choice. I don't understand why it has to be considered a wrong choice by the guy posting behind you. I don't mind talking about it, but I get frustrated when people post things that aren't meant to be discussed.
  reply report
  59
  stilljustwonderinposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pink, I am sorry to hear that. Ya can't think all Thiest are the same no more than we can think all athiests are the same. All Christians I know love to bring others to church. Maybe your brother was unsure of his beliefs?
  reply report
  74
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no, he just had nothing to hang on to. someone saw that in him, and turned him into a fanatic. He was depressed. Only when he broke from the church did he find who he really is. He is an amazing person, and lost touch with me because his pastor was telling him that i was "secular" and that he should not be close to someone who was not christian and who didnt want to be christian. Something about being unequally yoked. which i think is b.s.
  reply report
  60
  Julie2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pink, my little brother and sister were told to stay away from me by their mother and the church because I listened to "World Music." Which mean't anything that wasn't Christian. I was looked at as a bad influence.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Selfish is putting oneself above another, which the belief in a god does.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cagsil, I know I could never explain this in a way that you would believe me, but the concept of Christianity has nothing to do with putting oneself above another. If that is what you think, then I can certainly understand your post.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Christianity religious philosophy is about a belief in a god.
  
  That belief is pure selfish chosen action. As is any belief in a god. Any individual selfishly chooses in an afterlife and a god to provide it, does so at the peril of the human species.
  
  Again, any belief in a god, automatically puts an individual, in their own way, below them. Thus, is said- I get rewarded for my belief and those of you who don't believe, too bad.
  
  I hope that cleared that up.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How does choosing an after life put the human species at peril?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because, most actions taken will not be for the betterment or benefit of humankind. Therefore, every time someone dies, having done nothing to better the world around them, then they have selfishly lived their life at the cost of ruining the human species, because they didn't love or have compassion for others. If every person in the world was completely selfish, then the destruction of the human species would be inevitable.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I suppose that would be true, if it were true. What about the religious organizations that work for the good of mankind? What about the churches that send the money to the religious organizations that work for the good of mankind? What about Habitat for Humanity, which is a Christian sponsored organization? I, personally, don't belong to a church but I have attempted to help many people in need during these tyring economic times. Out of a compassion for my fellow man.
  
  How do you see this as selfish?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you check on the research yourself with regards to the church and what exactly they spend on organizations versus what is actually brought into the church as far as revenue. Then, you've an answer to that question.
  
  However, I know any non-profit or charity in the U.S. as of 2000, were not meeting the Federal Regulations guidelines. Therefore, none of them met the minimum standard guideline. It's pathetic.
  I said the belief in a god that provides an afterlife is selfish. If you do more to better your fellow humans' life, while you live. That's good. You should. It's the belief itself that is selfish.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  @Just_Curious
  
  You are right...Christian Beliefs have nothing to do with putting yourself over an other...but sadly that is just what is happening quite often...People who claim to be christians consider themselves "better" than someone who doesn't believe the same as them...This doesn't apply to all of them.. but a majority do.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Double Scorpion. I'm glad you posted. You seem like a guy that has studied a lot about religion, has an open mind both ways. What do you think? Are these valid arguments against a deity, or just conundrums meant to put a log jam in the discussion.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Belief in a Divine being is purely a Spiritual thing....and is a very personal connection...Those who believe will never see the "faults" and those who don't believe will never see the "truth" Physical proof of a Spiritual thing is just not possible...Those who don't believe don't understand why those that do believe do, and those who do believe don't understand why those who don't believe don't. And both side will always attempt to justify or prove thier beliefs. The question you must ask yourself is...Do they make a valid point and if so why? And why are they asking something that I don't know the answer to? If a person studies and has complete confidence in thier beliefs, nothing is likely to shake that belief.
  
  Edit: And sometimes it is just a test to see if you really know what you claim to believe.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, this is where many who believe fail. By not understanding the "spiritual" thing to begin with.
  
  The only spirituality for the human species is Love. Plain and simple. No god required.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey cags. Don't take this as argumentative, but you appear to be quite firm in your resolve. Ever consider writing a book on this? Maybe going on tour?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have no need. But, thank you for considering my life path, for which, isn't something for you to do in the first place.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wasn't. Don't take things to heart so.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But the heart is where LOVE comes from. Always take things to heart, just don't get over emotional about them. It's called - self control.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for answering. I agree with you that it isn't possible to show either way and it is a personal thing. It has been a curiosity to me on this site how adamantly people feel about the topic. I had never put much thought into how one might perceive the belief of another affected their lives. It's been an eye opener.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  but isn't the Self a --well-- self proclaimed "god" --having total power and control over ones self and ones destiny?
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not a good comparison, but nice try.
  reply report
  60
  Julie2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cags, I'm very selfish because I do not like to share my favorite snack, Pizza Flavored Combos! mmm mmm mmm:P
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting to see you in the religious forums. However, I sure your selfish behavior with regards to your snacks is just one of few traits you have. And, since I'm all too familiar with many of the other things included in that statement, I will leave it there. But, it was nice to see you Julie.
  reply report
  60
  Julie2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Hey Hey! I really mean't the Combo's Cags....
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know what you meant. I also know more than I need too.
  reply report
  60
  Julie2posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like your pic
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  reply report
2. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Let's see. It is selfish to want to live forever? If it's an option open for all of us, why is that selfish?
  
  Jesus said whoever is last shall become first. Sounds to me like you agree with Christianity on that one.
  
  What do you do for a living? Are you more for the benefit of your fellow man than the next guy? If so, I applaud you. We all do the best we can.
  
  So, out of curiosity, onto the topic. Do you consider them valid arguments about the concept of God?
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 13 years ago
GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL CRUTCH- Again, funny. Theists posting appear to be emotionally stable. Very rarely do I consider them in need of a crutch, so the argument appears invalid.

Theists have an emotional crutch in their religion and with it are seemingly stable. You do not consider them to be in need of a crutch because they already have one and don't need another. Your comment is invalid because you ignore that the crutch is already there.
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK. Thanks for posting. So you consider that, if removed, they would be unstable?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm. That's a good question.
  
  Most theists seem to have a need to moral and ethical guidance. They are apparently unable to deduce what is moral and what is not without such orders from above and are willing to accept what is obviously (to the rest of us) immoral orders as moral.
  
  If that is correct, it would seem that they have no concept of morals or ethics without their religion. Without any moral or ethical structure, then yes, I would consider them to be emotionally unstable.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I would probably disagree on that point I think many Christians (I can't speak for other theists) have an over developed sense of what is right and wrong. I know, for myself, that things others consider Ok are still wrong for me, whether the church teaches it or not.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The church need not actually teach, in a formal sense, right and wrong (although they often do) for religion to play an enormous part in deciding what is right and wrong. Plus, of course, you may be the exception blah blah blah.
  
  No, the church has too many times been ,kicking and screaming, into teaching correct ethical standards after centuries of teaching immorality and having it accepted as God's truth and therefore "right" somehow. Those billions of folks that accepted such obscene teachings both formal and informal were obviously unable to tell the difference between right and wrong themselves and had to accept what they were given from above.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, except for maybe the billions part, I would agree with you to an extent. There are some that do exactly what they are told, because they apparently don't want to think for themselves.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Many, many billions, although I go back a few years. How many believed in the crusades? Or the inquisition tactics? Or slavery? How many believed that women are substandard citizens? Or that gays are evil? Or that witches needed persecuted and killed? Today they remove our most revered ancestors from the history books because they weren't mythologists.
  
  Nor do I except other religions - how many whacko muslims wish only to kill Americans? Or kill little girls for going to school? Or stone to death women for infidelity?
  
  All either actively promoted by the church or at least condoned and promoted "under the table" as being ordained by God and therefore "right". Religion has a history of being almost amoral when it comes to maintaining and expanding their power base and membership and the people accept it without complaint, unable to distinguish right from wrong.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.100%. Religion can be deadly when practiced in numbers, or used to the detriment of others.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Religion provides a great deal of happiness, comfort and support to a great many people. It is truly unfortunate that organized churches have such a stranglehold on it and use it to control, harm or destroy others in the name of God.
  
  Of course, in the final analysis it is the people of religion that allow and encourage such things.
  
  Perhaps it is a sign of their emotional instability that they so often say one thing and do another?
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I do believe organized religion is a bane to society at times. And people need to think for themselves, but that is a problem across the entire spectrum of society.
  
  You are right, in the final analysis those who follow are as responsible as the ones who lead,.
  
  But the ones who say one thing and do another? I wouldn't call them emotionally unstable. I think I'd call them schmucks. Plenty of those in and outside of religion. Few people go their own path in the world. Most people need to be a part of a crowd of some sort and will do whatever they think makes them look good to their click. At the cost of honesty, or decency sometimes.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sometimes? More than 66% of the world is religious in some manner. Even just sometimes is detrimental to the human species.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure the entire 66% of the world is causing trouble. A percentage, for sure, but the other 34% is not probelm free themselves.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, they are not free of problems, because of religious influence and it's power that is bestowed on the elected politicians around the world are making it not problem free.
  
  Change politics into something constructive and eliminate religion, and you almost have a world at peace. What do you know?
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You think so? Before the Iron Curtain fell, millions died and it didn't have anything to do with religion.
  
  Mao Tse Tung? Pol Pott? I don't think they were religious men either. Millions died.
  
  World Wars? Were these about religion?
  
  You want to blame someone for the troubles of the world, look in the mirror. And imagine billions of others looking in their mirrors too.
  
  We are all responsible. You want to cast the blame onto another group of people? That is entirely within your rights, but it is not an honest assessment of who we are as a species.
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is an exact and precise demonstration for the lack of love and compassion in the world.
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Btw- do the math-
  
  There are over 4.2 billion people who are religious or have a belief in a god. There are only 6.6 billion people in the world.
  
  So, you tell me. I was rounding up to the 2/3 mark.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cags, I was taking your numbers at face value. I don't care what the breakdown is. We are all part of a global problem. Deflecting the blame does not solve our problems.
  
  And, by the way, we've been posting back and forth and you have never commented on the original question. What do you think?
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I did post to your original OP. Which was my first post to this thread.
  report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which said you were neither theist or atheist, as I recall. You're a thinking guy. I'm curious. Do you think the questions have merit in arguing about the existence of any god? I know the question was poised to theists, but atheists have posted too. I assume you classify yourself as agnostic. Maybe not. Whatever you are, what do you think?
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is no argument. By all accounts there should be no discussion of it, because in actuality there isn't a true need for the human species to have a belief in a god. It's only one's failure to understand one's own life, which gives one reason to form such a belief.
  report
2. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  when I was a christian, I didn't like being told belief in god was an emotional crutch, probably because it's true.
  
  As for people being emotionally unstable - I saw plenty in the pentecostal scene that could have qualified as having a mental illness.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but you are talking Pentacostal. That's a whole other can of worms in my opinion.
  
  I admit, if a person stepped away from faith they would probably spend a great deal of time trying to understand the change. I don't know that I would classify that as unstable. But, as always, I could be wrong.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You seem a little...disdainful... of the Pentacostal church. Of course, it isn't (I assume) your church and therefore not as good. It isn't "right" somehow, while being virtually identical to all the other Christian churches to an outsider looking in.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Were you talking to me? I can't seem to get these things to open to say who you were posting behind.
  
  If so, I have no 'church' that I am affiliated with. I look at the Pentacostals as overboard, as I do with many other branches of Christianity.
  
  If I sounded disdainful, I guess I should apologize. It certainly isn't my place to judge another's faith.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, it's your place to judge actions. And how one individual uses their faith is a judged action.
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose you are right, on an individual level. Lumping all pentecostal's into the same category is probably being too judgmental though.
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  it's something that happens frequently even within the christians - they are pretty good at judging each other too
  reply report
  0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I guess that's clear from my posts. I don't mean any harm. I just wish everyone would be a little kinder in their assessments of each other. I just don't think we give enough credit to other's abilities to make the decisions that are right for them. But that goes both ways, I think.
  reply report
  92
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is SO unkind to point out when people are talking nonsense.
  
  Yepper. That definitely is cruel.
  reply report
3. 74
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  wilderness, i think our boys have the same jammies. Also, your little one looks like mine, but yours just looks a little older. Your pic always catches my eye in the forums, because of this.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That would be cute - the same jammies. It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about, though!
  
  Actually, not my little boy - he's my grandson and, perhaps, the apple of my eye. He was two when that pic was taken.
  reply report
  74
  the pink umbrellaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ha, my son is 2, thats funny. He has batman pj's that look like those, so maybe not the same. its just funny how your picture catches my eye like that, it feels familiar because it looks like my adonis.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't it a wonderful age? You know, they say "the terrible two's" but for both of my own and now my grandson it was "the terrific two's".
  
  I had forgotten how great it is to be around little ones, but he constantly reminds me. Even now, sitting on my lap as I type.
  reply report
66
superwagsposted 13 years ago
I'm an atheist, and as I'm in my twenties and live in a first world country which isn't the USA, all of my friends, family and aquaintances also have no belief in God. I think you'll find that the majority of us don't worry about it too much.

I get sick and tired of reading these kind of posts. Surely your default position should be no belief in god, then you can read about the various gods that we've come up with over the last few thousand years and pick one once your of an age and intelligence to be better informed?

I mean, that's what I'd probably recommend. If you have to have one, that is.... There's certainly no need to be offended by any of this.

To quote Eric Hoffer; "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for posting. Not sure I saw your answer to the question at hand in that. But, good thoughts anyway.
  reply report
  66
  superwagsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer; I'm not a theist.
  
  I'd say that all the statements are valid. I obviously wouldn't class all theists as unstable, but I'm sure it does act as an emotional crutch; I mean you're obviously better qualified to comment on this than me, but that tends to be my experience - at least partly the reason.
  
  As I alluded in the first answer, I'm from the UK so the majority of "religious" people I know are immigrants; Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and a kind of crackers Christianity where they jump about and loudly shout "praise" a lot (I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone here, I just geniunely don't know which of the thousand denomanations this is!). So I think the reason that they keep this up is because it maintains a kind of "community" feel for them, meet others from the same place etc.
  
  I'm just not concerned about religion as an atheist. I get annoyed when the nutty fringe in this country try to get Genesis taught as science, but this will never happen. I religion will eventually peter out, even in the US.
  
  A fascinating perspective of religions can be seen in the "cargo cults" of the Pacific islands; kind of "young" religions that show the tendancy towards religion in human nature.
  
  Wow, that was a novel!
  reply report
66
safiq ali patelposted 13 years ago
Your article is breif but you make an interesting point about arguments that people who don't have faith make. I don't see the point of blaming god for famines either as we are responsible for our selves and each other. God resides far away from here. Though his spirit is present here.It is up to humanity to solves it's problems rather than using the problems of the planet to justify or explain that there is no god. Often people who are athiests present awkward questions. Your article is amusing that in just a few words you spell out their awkard questions about faith and you quite rightly point out that they have not really thought through the little arguments they present. I am happy to go on believing in god and find prayer and interaction with god rewarding, useful and relaxing. I respect people's right to not beleive if that is what they wish. But I'm not sure I buy or take very seriously agruments against the existence of god. I like the points of your article very much.
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Get serious.
  reply report
74
Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago
Christians don't believe in 999 gods.

Atheists don't believe in 1000 of them.

Atheists are a little more consistent, it seems.

But I never claimed my beliefs were rational; they're beliefs, not science or math. I can't prove God's existence. I won't even try. I even accept the possibility that I could be wrong.

On the OP, none of those are particularly logical arguments, but then again, the arguments that most theists use to 'prove' that God exists are equally faulty. God exists. How do you know? He gave us the Bible. How do you know? It says so in the Bible. Huh?

God exists. How do you know? He must exist: look at how complex the universe is. Huh?

God exists. How do you know? Okay, smarty, prove He doesn't! Huh?

I don't get why people of faith feel this need to 'prove' that God exists. It can't be done. Sooner or later, you'll find out for sure. Why bug people about it now?
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am in agreement completely. Thanks for saying it so well.
  reply report
62
pisean282311posted 13 years ago
I completely agree that starving children has nothing to do with god and that is exactly the whole point...what ever happens in the world as far as human species goes is because of humans or other species or nature...god should neither be blamed , nor be praised and be left alone...we dont need to call god great or brutal and neither be concerned about it...if we want to blame humans , praise should logically go to humans and god should be least significant entity and never a point of discussion and must never be given too much importance...we as race should not care whether god exist or not...forget about praising , praying ,complaining it...but as humans we have this nature of fearing something which cannot be seen , proven ...coming to Christianity , well it is too limited religion...and falls short of taking into account entire human species and other species...but why alone Christianity , most religions fall short of this...but we must admire those humans who created religion...they intended good but lack larger perceptive of universe but never the less what ever they did in their limited means of knowledge , they did good job considering their era..
reply report
1. 0
  just_curiousposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I actually agree with you to an extent. I don't think we should exclude praise of God from our lives, but definitely we should look to others and be truly appreciative of their accomplishments for the good of man.
  
  And, you are right. Christianity, as it is practiced by the masses, is exclusive. This is not, in my opinion, as God intended.
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  praise and blame are two sides of single coin...if we want to praise god for what he has given to us then blame for what he has not given goes to god...if we praise god for abundance in our life then blame for starving children too goes to god...it cannot be praise god for all goods and blame humans for all bad...that is called sycophancy...
  
  If we praise humans for things like technology then blame for its side effects too goes to humans..if we blame humans for starving kids then praise for tilting land , creating means to distribute food too goes on humans...
  reply report
  0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  god never gets the blame by christians
  reply report
60
dutchman1951posted 13 years ago
I guess I find it hard to believe that a True Atheist even looks at a manual. He or she just simply does not believe.
If they are real, they have no concept of God and just accept it naturaly

However if the person making the statements is doing that for attention, a child-like need to be noticed- then I guess a manual would help them with talking points.....lolol

hard to tell the players without a score card I'd say
reply report
1. 0
  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't live by any manual
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Atheism Handbook Found

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Atheism Handbook Found

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies