• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Damn Atheists!!

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
That's an expansive interpretation of the original meaning of atheism. If atheists were honest about it they would identify simply lack of belief as agnosticism, not atheism.

The interpretation conflates rejection of belief with the default state, which is a way of hiding a particular kind of hypocrisy.

That's absolutely ridiculous. And atheist is NOT an agnostic. An Agnostic DOESN'T KNOW if they believe in a god or not. An atheist KNOWS that they lack a belief in any god. Rejection of belief SHOULD be the default state, UNTIL evidence is provided to justify such belief.

Sorry if you refuse to accept the simple definition of words.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The facts are definitely not on your side.

atheism (n.)

"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
I am not beholden to how other people choose to define words -- just so they can put me into some box or other.

Let me try to be as precise as I can -- and do try your best to bring your ability to understand up to at least that level.
  • I do not know what the word "god" really means.
  • I do not know if there is one or not, for that reason.
  • On the other hand, I have read the definitions accepted by others about what the word "god" really means (to them).
  • Their definitions have all, every one, lacked any means by which I could examine whether something that met their definition actually existed.
  • Therefore, I have decided to ignore the question as unimportant and frankly irrelevant.
If you cannot see that this is not a "doctrine," and is in fact the absolute antithesis of a "doctrine," then your reasoning abilities are too limited to engage further.

For reference, a "doctrine" is a set of beliefs, and most usually, beliefs to which I must adhere. The opposite of "beliefs to which I must adhere" is "bumpf that I can safely ignore."
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
At the end of the day, however, what is really the difference you're trying to suggest between the courtroom and open discussion -- in terms of what people believe, and why they should believe otherwise?

I have had many people tell me that I should believe in God, and I've asked all of them, "why?" It's a simple enough question. I've never seen anything that suggested that something "godlike" was busy in the world, so I ask others what they see that I might have missed. And they never, ever, not once come even close to showing something that says "here is evidence of God." Instead, the entreat me to consider such ludicrous notions as Pascal's Wager.

Well, I could do the same thing. I could threaten that "if you don't properly placate Chupacabra, he will come and tear the entrails out of you and your children." So don't you think you should offer whatever it is that Chupacabra wants, just to be on the safe side? Why, or why not?

I never suggested that people should be threatened by the God idea. I simply believe it's better to hear out a person and their claims if they are open enough to share them without insulting them personally.

The God believer likewise feels threatened when their whole lives are considered phoney, or ridiculous when they actually are sincere about it.

In an open discussion you are merely exchanging ideas in the spirit of trying to understand each other. Debate is another matter entirely.

I do not want someone threatening me with either world view myself.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I never suggested that people should be threatened by the God idea. I simply believe it's better to hear out a person and their claims if they are open enough to share them without insulting them personally.

The God believer likewise feels threatened when their whole lives are considered phoney, or ridiculous when they actually are sincere about it.

In an open discussion you are merely exchanging ideas in the spirit of trying to understand each other. Debate is another matter entirely.

I do not want someone threatening me with either world view myself.
Okay --- open discussion.

I've heard the "God idea" all my life, and for all of my life it simply made no sense, said nothing of interest, and therefore for me, it was something I could simply ignore as having no relevance to my life.

Lot's of people have told me why I should pay more attention -- you know, for reasons like, "you could go to hell and burn for eternity" and like that. But lacking any belief in God, that's always seemed like just an idle threat to me. Nobody in existence can produce a single example of a "soul in eternal hell." Just like I can't produce any evidence of a pink unicorn. You don't believe in the pink unicorn without evidence, why do you suppose I should believe in eternal torment in hell without evidence?

And I'll tell you why -- because you were taught it, you read it in a book that you were conditioned to believe was somehow really special, and really extraordinary. But not for any reason that you have ever personally experienced. You cannot, and you will not, ever show me a "soul burning in hell."

Now let's go the other way -- let's look at the more positive promises. Christians have been promised in the New Testament that if you believe enough, and if you pray enough, then you'll get what you really need. John 16: 23-24 "truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full."

And --- it doesn't happen. Christians pray every day, every hour, every minute, for the deepest desires of their hearts -- that their husband, wife, child may not die of this cancer or that disease. Then they die, because that's the way the world works. And they have no joy.

And what do they do then? They try to find a reason in their own fault why their prayers were not answered. But there is no hint in John 16 that fault could deny the answering of a prayer, is there?

So there you go -- open discussion: I see what I see, you think there's something else -- tell me what it is and what makes you think it's real.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
What makes you think that I dislike them?
Because it creates a big gaping hole in your "argument".

What deity do infants believe in?
Your blatant refusal to answer this rather direct question strongly indicates that you are aware of the hole and are merely trying desperately to distract from it.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I didn't claim it was a tangent.
The second you claimed it irrelevant you declared it a tangent.
.
The point remains that the etymology of atheism refutes your position.


ouch.

et·y·mol·o·gy
noun
  1. the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.

Pay close attention to the part after the word "and"....

Thus you have not in any way "refuted" my position.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
That's an expansive interpretation of the original meaning of atheism. If atheists were honest about it they would identify simply lack of belief as agnosticism, not atheism.

The interpretation conflates rejection of belief with the default state, which is a way of hiding a particular kind of hypocrisy.
No, that's only your religion. The definition of atheism refutes that.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Okay --- open discussion.

I've heard the "God idea" all my life, and for all of my life it simply made no sense, said nothing of interest, and therefore for me, it was something I could simply ignore as having no relevance to my life.

Lot's of people have told me why I should pay more attention -- you know, for reasons like, "you could go to hell and burn for eternity" and like that. But lacking any belief in God, that's always seemed like just an idle threat to me. Nobody in existence can produce a single example of a "soul in eternal hell." Just like I can't produce any evidence of a pink unicorn. You don't believe in the pink unicorn without evidence, why do you suppose I should believe in eternal torment in hell without evidence?

And I'll tell you why -- because you were taught it, you read it in a book that you were conditioned to believe was somehow really special, and really extraordinary. But not for any reason that you have ever personally experienced. You cannot, and you will not, ever show me a "soul burning in hell."

Now let's go the other way -- let's look at the more positive promises. Christians have been promised in the New Testament that if you believe enough, and if you pray enough, then you'll get what you really need. John 16: 23-24 "truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full."

And --- it doesn't happen. Christians pray every day, every hour, every minute, for the deepest desires of their hearts -- that they husband, wife, child may not die of this cancer or that disease. Then they die, because that's the way the world works. And they have no joy.

And what do they do then? They try to find a reason in their own fault why their prayers were not answered. But there is no hint in John 16 that fault could deny the answering of a prayer, is there?

So there you go -- open discussion: I see what I see, you think there's something else -- tell me what it is and what makes you think it's real.

I'm not Christian, and I do not believe in an omni God. I have had open discussions with many religious people and I find them to be quite senseless.

My convictions are based on my subjective experiences. I don't mandate to anybody anything. I don't mind expressing my convictions but I don't impose anything.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I'm not Christian, and I do not believe in an omni God. I have had open discussions with many religious people and I find them to be quite senseless.

My convictions are based on my subjective experiences. I don't mandate to anybody anything. I don't mind expressing my convictions but I don't impose anything.
And that's fine, but you must accept that your subjective experiences can't possibly impact somebody who has never had them, and knows nothing about them.

Whether you'll also admit that your subjective experiences may be just that -- entirely subjective and not based in any reality outside of your own mind -- is something else. If you admit that may well be the case, then we have nothing more to talk about. If you insist that those experiences may have a reality outside of your own mind, well then we have something to talk about, and which you, I'm afraid, have to demonstrate.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
And that's fine, but you must accept that your subjective experiences can't possibly impact somebody who has never had them, and knows nothing about them.

Whether you'll also admit that your subjective experiences may be just that -- entirely subjective and not based in any reality outside of your own mind -- is something else. If you admit that may well be the case, then we have nothing more to talk about. If you insist that those experiences may have a reality outside of your own mind, well then we have something to talk about, and which you, I'm afraid, have to demonstrate.

I am not insisting it has a reality for anyone. It has reality for me, and that's fine for me.

Thanks for the input!
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Well, that's what an ATHEIST is, someone who simply has no belief in god, so please quit trying to tell me I'm an agnostic.
Well, you COULD be an agnostic.
As well as an atheist.
Of course, you could be an atheist BECAUSE you are an agnostic.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
Top