What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[The Voice of Reason]

See what I mean, Fluffy?

What's the matter? Gadfly not enough backup on this one?

 

[Storm]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have experienced God firsthand?

I don't know about him, but I have.

I have no doubt that there are people out there that honestly believe that God speaks to them while they are staring at their pancakes, or that they see Jesus in the markings on the side of a cow.

You do yourself an even greater disservice here than you do us.

Is that the type of evidence you have?

No.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't know about him, but I have.

Congratulations. And I mean that sincerely.

You do yourself an even greater disservice here than you do us.

I do no disservice to either of us. I am asking a question, to determine what type of "evidence" Rolling Stone has. If you doubt my claim, please take a moment to visit this hyperlink:
Comparison Of Jesus In The Door With The Jesus Photo - Origin Unknown

With a little effort, you can find a ton of such sightings.

No.

If this is not the type of experience that you have of God, then I can only assume that you are referring to some type of moment of conversion, when you felt the spirit of God move through you. Would that be the type of experience that you had?

 

[Storm]

Congratulations. And I mean that sincerely.

I do no disservice to either of us. I am asking a question, to determine what type of "evidence" Rolling Stone has. If you doubt my claim, please take a moment to visit this hyperlink:
Comparison Of Jesus In The Door With The Jesus Photo - Origin Unknown

With a little effort, you can find a ton of such sightings.

OK, maybe I overreacted. If so, I apologize. It sounded to me like you were dismissing all mystical experience as comparably ludicrous.

If this is not the type of experience that you have of God, then I can only assume that you are referring to some type of moment of conversion, when you felt the spirit of God move through you. Would that be the type of experience that you had?

Not exactly. I had a theophany (in the very precise sense of neurotheology - are you familiar?). It wasn't a "moment of conversion," which to me implies acceptance of a religion. It was an intense, overwhelming experience which language utterly fails to describe. For now, suffice to say that it completely transformed me and I can only begin to comprehend it in terms of a vision of God. Ever since it happened, I've been obsessed with figuring out "what was that?!"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Storm -

Lest you misread my position on theism, please talk with Scott1 and Scuba Pete. We disagree on a great many things, but we have a great, mutual respect for each other.
To be honest, I think Scuba Pete actually idolizes me.

My problem is not (nor has it ever been) with someone that is an avowed theist. My problem lies with people that dismiss alternative belief systems that differ from their own.

I hold the same contempt for agnostics and atheists that are abusive toward theists, and are rude to others for simply holding a different perspective.

In a few threads, both Rolling Stone and Gadfly have been nothing short of condescending about atheism in general, and atheists in specific. They have confused agnosticism with atheism (even after having had it pointed out to them), and they seem incapable of allowing that it is possible that atheists may, in fact, be right and that they might possibly be wrong.

I will support anyone (and everyone) in their right to embrace their belief system, but I have an equal disdain for those that are intolerant of others.

 

[Storm]

Storm -

Lest you misread my position on theism, please talk with Scott1 and Scuba Pete. We disagree on a great many things, but we have a great, mutual respect for each other.
To be honest, I think Scuba Pete actually idolizes me.

My problem is not (nor has it ever been) with someone that is an avowed theist. My problem lies with people that dismiss alternative belief systems that differ from their own.

I hold the same contempt for agnostics and atheists that are abusive toward theists, and are rude to others for simply holding a different perspective.

In a few threads, both Rolling Stone and Gadfly have been nothing short of condescending about atheism in general, and atheists in specific. They have confused agnosticism with atheism (even after having had it pointed out to them), and they seem incapable of allowing that it is possible that atheists may, in fact, be right and that they might possibly be wrong.

I will support anyone (and everyone) in their right to embrace their belief system, but I have an equal disdain for those that are intolerant of others.

Cool, then. We're on the same page.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Storm -

Lest you misread my position on theism, please talk with Scott1 and Scuba Pete. We disagree on a great many things, but we have a great, mutual respect for each other.
To be honest, I think Scuba Pete actually idolizes me.

There is definitely a mutual admiration society going on between the three of us. The only time we get a little testy is when we see narrow mindedness towards other beliefs.

 

[Scott1]

Let the record show I idolize TVOR WAAAAAAAAY more than Pete!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Let the record show I idolize TVOR WAAAAAAAAY more than Pete!

Just stop it!! You'll turn my head ...



Pete - are you going to let him get ahead of you like that?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let the record show I idolize TVOR WAAAAAAAAY more than Pete!

Agnostic noser.

 

[Charity]

There it is, in a simple two sentence paragraph.

Gadfly truly believes that he is speaking for God. Notice that he is not simply claiming the moral high ground (which he does in the first sentence). With the second sentence, he states that God is (in absentia) fighting through the Gadfly.

Hello TVOR, It's just me again....Once again I don't mean to interfere in your debate but I do have the knowledge of the scripture and know what he is referring to here. God tells us that he is on our side and will fight our battle for us. I think here he is using that way of thinking, that we as Christians are not fighting but God will fight it for us. I don't believe that Gadfly feels that God is fighting through him, but for him. Once again I am telling you that he is not speaking for God, but of God and the teaching of Jesus. I have been following this thread and I am learning a lot that I didn't know about the atheist and the agnostic. I am not really taking any side here, but I would really like to clarify what I believe to be just a conflict in the wording. The rest of the posts on his behalf, I do not chose to offer an opinion....:sarcastic

Also I believe it was Robtec that said he would like for a theist to give an opinion on what their interpretation of an atheist was. My only thought on that is they are somone who does not believe in God. That is the way I perceive them to be, no more, no less.

Thank you for taking time to read my post, and I will keep reading this thread, who knows what excitement awaits.

Charity

 

[Fluffy]

Finally, someone intelligent. We often disagree, Fluffy, but I can always count on you for intelligence.

Thanks . I'm not nearly as intelligent as some of the others who have already responded to you, however.

No disagreement here. It's when "chance" is is used as an explanation that it plays the same role as God in the gaps--and I've seen it used that way many, many times by the same people who criticize "god in the gaps.

Yes it is true that "god of the gaps" is used in this way but I don't think that it is a reasonable usage of that argument and I still think that chance/God is reasonably placed in various theories. However, I don't think it is reasonable to discount, for example, evolution in favour of creationism (a synthesis is reasonable) which is where the god of the gaps is most typically employed.

See what I mean, Fluffy?

I think you'd do well to give TVOR the credit that he deserves. You have been around here for a year now but TVOR has been around a heck of a lot longer and has consistently made posts that are intelligent and knowledgeable.

If you want better responses, you should strive to be more respectful.

Cool. I find my own beliefs continually evolving. No one is more critical of my conception of God than me.

I definitely think that is the best place to be and the one that will be the most profitable.

I don't claim there is evidence apart from personal experience. However, that doesn't necessarily make belief unreasonable. The demand for evidence is irrelevant in decisions which are forced upon us in which in which there is none one way or the other. How we place our bets (as in Pascal's wager) determines the course of our investigations--and not placing any bets (agnosticism) is effectively placing the same bet as the atheist. For the tools must be adequate to the task and we must choose to develop them, and the only reason to do that is to first believe there is something more to life, something deeper, than what are physical senses tell us.

This last point goes to the difference between "truth" and "fact."

The bits in green I agree with, the bits in orange I am unsure about and the bit in red I disagree with. Why I disagree is best explained by an example:
If we are discussing the origin of life on Earth then I must choose between abiogenesis (A) and exogenesis (E). If I choose A and A is wrong then I will research A until I discover its flaws at which point I will be forced to give it up in favour of E. If I choose E and E is wrong then the same thing will happen in reverse. If I choose neither (or both, it amounts to the same thing) then I will research them both until whichever one comes up with flaws and then I will choose the other.

Therefore, it appears most rational to me to explore every possibility and to make judgement out of practicality but never in order to direct one's investigation. That is, in philosophy. Science plays by different rules because it has a different purpose and that is fine. When we have to tackle the question of the origin of life scientifically, different rules will apply.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Hello TVOR, It's just me again....Once again I don't mean to interfere in your debate but I do have the knowledge of the scripture and know what he is referring to here. God tells us that he is on our side and will fight our battle for us. I think here he is using that way of thinking, that we as Christians are not fighting but God will fight it for us. I don't believe that Gadfly feels that God is fighting through him, but for him. Once again I am telling you that he is not speaking for God, but of God and the teaching of Jesus. I have been following this thread and I am learning a lot that I didn't know about the atheist and the agnostic. I am not really taking any side here, but I would really like to clarify what I believe to be just a conflict in the wording. The rest of the posts on his behalf, I do not chose to offer an opinion....:sarcastic

Also I believe it was Robtec that said he would like for a theist to give an opinion on what their interpretation of an atheist was. My only thought on that is they are somone who does not believe in God. That is the way I perceive them to be, no more, no less.

Thank you for taking time to read my post, and I will keep reading this thread, who knows what excitement awaits.

Charity

Charity -

Thank you for the input. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and I believe (as you do) that Gadfly is simply using poor wording to make his point. Then again, I could be wrong, and he might actually mean exactly what he is typing.

My point in addressing Gadfly is to try to provoke him into two things:
1) Take the time to structure his posts so that they truly reflect his message (because, to be honest, I'm not sure of 2/3 of what he is saying).
2) Stop being so intolerant in his views toward those that don't share his belief system.

His propensity to lump 10-15% of the population into a single group that has universal positions on such a wide array of issues is indefensible. His continued use of the phrase "atheist logic" demonstrates that he is struggling to convey his inability to understand the ideas and positions of others.

Your assessment of atheists being a group of people that do not believe in God - no more, no less - is spot on. Beyond that simple statement, one begins the journey into baseless generalizations.

Without question, the posts on this thread contain no small number of such fallacies.

And THAT, good Charity, is why I will continue posting in this thread.

For what it is worth, I respect all belief systems equally, even if I don't embrace them personally. I also have great disdain for all that practice intolerance (as we have seen in this thread) - especially when it is combined with ignorance, condescension, and pomposity.

I am sincere, when I tell you that I respect and value your input. I know that you are making a good faith effort to help quench some of the heat in this thread. For myself, the sarcasm and mockery will cease when the ignorance and intolerance is overcome.

 

[GadFly]

The problem is that you all but flat out said that atheists were evil. I would consider that a personal attack against atheists, and trolling. I don't care so much, but just don't play the innocent victim here.

The reason the bible teaches atheist are evil is that atheist reject the moral standards given to man by God. It is a theological concept shared by Christians universally. Are you going to charge every body in Christendom with a personal attack or just me.

 

[Yerda]

The reason the bible teaches atheist are evil is that atheist reject the moral standards given to man by God. It is a theological concept shared by Christians universally. Are you going to charge every body in Christendom with a personal attack or just me.

Does the Bible teach that atheists are evil?

 

[GadFly]

Atheism is not about good or evil. They just don't believe in God.

By itself, atheism have no political agenda, because it is not about politics; it is simply the lack of belief in the existence of god. Hence, atheism doesn't equal to communism, which theists commonly used to attack atheists.

Is Christianity about democracy and freedom? No.

You put too much emphasizes on what you call evil. To a Christian or to Christ, the greatest evil was unbelief. Therefore what you call a simple "lack of belief in the existence of God" is the definition of evil to Christians. Communism does not believe in God and it is therefore evil. Atheism is evil.
GadFly.

 

[UnTheist]

Atheism is evil.

Gadfly speaks the Truth.

 

[GadFly]

There it is, in a simple two sentence paragraph.

Gadfly truly believes that he is speaking for God. Notice that he is not simply claiming the moral high ground (which he does in the first sentence). With the second sentence, he states that God is (in absentia) fighting through the Gadfly.

Anybody who is reasonably sane knows a joke when they see it. I know that I am not a fly. But, the way you reason about things, do you know that you are not the Voice of Reason.?

 

[GadFly]

Post #428
If you would have bothered paying attention, I already said as much.

Try using Godly logic instead of atheistic logic.

 

[GadFly]

Does the Bible teach that atheists are evil?

I think so. It sure does not teach atheist are righteous.The Bible teaches that atheist lie and the Bible claims atheist are fools. Don't get mad at me. Get mad at God. He said it,not me.