Atheists Admit Defeat - Video Atheists don't want you to see

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.

Vault,

Because certain DOCTRINES naturally flow from others. If you hold there is no afterlife, for example, it begs the question, "what happens after death?" The American Atheists realize this and answer "death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units", which is a positive statement.

We don't live in vacuum and sooner or later you'll have to defend your position.

God Bless, Mark

Explain to me how it begs the question, other than your assertion that it does?

As for what happens after death, that does not have to be answered by atheism. Though science would tell you that your body ceases to function, and will slowly decay over time.

Atheism does not have to be defended. Your shifting of the burden of proof is fallacious.

It is the same rational as telling anyone who does not believe in ghosts that they have to disprove ghosts.

Do you require anyone who does not believe in alien life forms visiting the earth to disprove them, or provide evidence as to why they do not believe in them?

Do you require people who do not believe that acupuncture has any medical merit to provide evidence as to why it does not?

Likely, if you take the logical position, you do not shift that burden to them. You allow them to take those positions based on the lack of physical evidence to support each of those claims.

Now ask yourself why do you treat the lack of belief in deities any differently.

I am not on this site to get into the God or no God debate, because I believe to each his own way, but do not treat atheism any different than you treat any other lack of belief without providing a real rhyme or reason.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Naturally. Only you do... That way, you do not have to be responsible for explaining why you believe what you believe... By keeping such things vague, you can avoid defending your position.

ad homs.

You are claiming that I am being dishonest in order to avoid defending my position.

Attack issues, not people right? Didn't I read that in the TOS somewhere?

First, because you disagree with a few statements doesn't mean "American Atheist" is wrong...
Such disagreement is common among theists - that doesn't mean that we are no longer theists because we disagree with about God and His attributes or so forth...

Secondly, I fail to see the difference of distinction you make between "no belief" and "lack of belief" in God... Such semantical word play is not convincing anyone. If you "lack belief" in the sense that you doubt, than call yourself an agnostic. Words DO have meaning...

Regards

where did I try to make a distinction between “lack of†and “no� There is none.

I am not playing semantics. I do not have to.

The semantics come into play when people discuss “believe that deities do not exist†versus “no/lack of beliefâ€Â. People tend to say that you cannot hold that position. You can not believe that God/gods do not exist because you can not prove they do not exist. While this is true, it lacks consistency.

If you hold that position for atheism, you are bound to hold that same position in ANY area of no/lack of beliefs.

Your world becomes full of agnostics.

You are agnostic towards Set. You are agnostic to the belief that aliens came down to earth and built the pyramids. You are agnostic in the belief in Frodo Baggins and the one ring. You are agnostic to the belief in Scientology.

Now, if you are ready to admit that you are agnostic to any and everything that you can imagine as well as the unimagined, then you are being consistent.

People who believe that acupuncture is a valid medical procedure look at the same evidence you see and find it compelling. You see the same evidence and do not find it compelling. They believe, you do not.

Religious people see the evidence for a higher, super natural power, and find it compelling. I view the same evidence, and do not find it compelling. They believe, while I do not.

Why should the two be any different? If you have any reasons why you are granted the right to do so, then lets go through them one by one.

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

I would posit that there is a big difference between whether God exists or not and "unicorns". The later is scientifically verifiable. The former is not... Thus, they are not in the same category of proof.

Oh, indeed, if that were true, it'd be even more of a leap to believe in 'God' and all the more reason why you can't 'disprove' him/it/whatever. How would you go about doing that, I must ask?

But, the existence of 'God' *can* be verified, at least the Christian one. He's made appearances and talked to people in the past (presumably, according to the bible). On the other hand, the god of deism couldn't be verified since it's been assumed not to interact with humanity. Furthermore, while both (i.e., the Christian god and unicorns) are verifiable, neither is falsifiable. My analogy stands.

I respectfully disagree. No one claims unicorns exist. Numerous sensible people believe God exists, and with little personal empirical evidence, measurable by science.

That doesn't make god/s all the more reasonable. Numerous people throughout the course of history believed many things. People who were, otherwise, reasonable.

Whether we speak of theism or atheism, the adherent must have reasons for his ACTIVE beliefs. We aren't speaking of agnosticism, where I doubt or am not sure or don't care one way or the other. Atheism is the ACTIVE belief that there is no God/gods. It is a "positive" belief, an assured set of principles that any belief in God is false

.

Yes, we all have reasons for our 'beliefs'. That cannot be denied. My reason for not believing in a god or god/s is because I know of no real evidence that they exists. That's actually what you're asking me to prove: why I don't believe in god/s. That's like me asking you to show me evidence of your belief that there's 'converging inferential evidence' for the existence of 'God'. That's entirely different from me asking you to show me proof/evidence that he exists.

You're confusing evidence categories.

Your standards of evidence are for your own self, they are not objective. I have already hinted at this, Eric. We all have a set of paradigms and hold onto them with a relatively strong emotion. After doing "apologetics" for years, I have found that logical arguments will VERY RARELY convince someone that my Catholic stance is correct and their Protestant stance is wrong. Why? Because they have an emotional investment in their current position, and logical arguments rarely touch that realm, at least over the short term. I believe it takes an experience of transcendent mystery for one (atheist/agnostic) to become convinced of God's existence (coupled with the openness to a Creator as the means of our existence). I know this from my own experience and the experience of others who have converted. While logical arguments prepare the "field", Eric, I strongly believe it takes something more.

Agreed, to an extent. That is, unless we can all agree on what 'evidence' is. If we can't then discussion is meaningless. If everyone's standards of evidence are subjective, then there's no logic in asking each other to prove anything! ;-)

I don't mean to generalize, but your kind of sentiments recur in many of my dialogues on this kind of subject. I've encountered several theists who drag the debate down into equivocating with what 'evidence', 'proof', etc. means. Once you've done that, there's nothing to discuss.

I once had a theist ask me: 'How can you be sure that we can trust our senses? If you can't "prove" your senses are correct, then how do you know whether or not you know you believe god exists or not?' It was something along those lines. The problem is, if we can't trust our senses simply because we can't 'prove' them, that doesn't just apply to me as an atheist. That applies to theists as well, because if they can't trust their senses, etc., then that pretty much compromises their assertions that a god exists as well. What you're doing here is similar by analogy.

Or for another example, when I was a Christian I used to love to debate issues of inerrancy with other Christians (I still do). I wasn't an inerrantist, but after I made my case, the inerrantist told me: 'You can't trust in man's logic. It doesn't matter what man thinks. It only matters what God thinks'.

Of course, by making that very assertion he defeated himself. After all, it mattered not what he thought about it. :-D

So what you're really asking me to do is not disprove a god's existence (something that logically can't be done), you're asking me to show you evidence of why I believe I don't see the evidence for a god's existence. That's an entirely different demand, and ultimately fruitless.

As such, providing proofs (for either of us) is probably not going to do any convincing. Would you agree with this?

Probably not. But I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply showing you that, all else being equal, the burden of proof is not on my shoulders.

And that's really all I have the propensity to say about the matter. Your discussion of 'miracles', 'cause and effect', etc., really don't change the nature of what's taking place here.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Naturally. Only you do... That way, you do not have to be responsible for explaining why you believe what you believe... By keeping such things vague, you can avoid defending your position.

ad homs.

You are claiming that I am being dishonest in order to avoid defending my position.

Attack issues, not people right? Didn't I read that in the TOS somewhere?

"ad hom"? Hold on and get a grip.

My point of sarcasm is to point out your belief that YOU define what Atheism is, not the American Atheism "society" or whatever says. That is certainly not an ad hominem, nor have I accused you of being dishonest. You have set yourself up as THE authority on the definition of "atheism". Not me.

Making a statement that "I define what atheism means" is not necessarily being dishonest, so you can't even say I am implying a dishonest motive from your side...

where did I try to make a distinction between “lack of†and “no� There is none.

I am not playing semantics. I do not have to.

Naturally there is no difference... However, when you say "Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities" and it differs (according to you) from what Mark and the dictionary says "Atheism is the belief there are no deities", you aren't trying to make a distinction, nor are you playing semantics...

Of course not... ;-)

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

I'm sorry you wasted your time googling answers on the internet. How long did it take you to find that, I wonder?

I don't know. I guess it depends on the nuance you apply to the word "time". Also, there might be some ambiguity over the words "googling" and "take", which we need to settle on before I give you an answer that might need to be defended. :-D

All kidding aside, from the time I read your response to the time I pasted it, about 3 mins., give or take. Remember, I'm the one that doesn't want to WASTE time. It was right on the first page of their website.

That is, once you realized that your own made up doctrines of atheism didn't hold water?

I didn't make up doctrines about atheism. Here is what I posted:

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

These were just examples of "statements I've heard through the years", I wasn't trying to define atheism. That's your Atheist organization's job, which they did.

You wrote this:

If you used it in the sense as if atheism has a collection of authoritative teachings or propositions such as is typically associated with religions, then I disagree here. That is, until you can actually tell me what the 'doctrine' of atheism is.

I showed you "what the 'doctrine' of atheism is", now, instead of doing the honorable thing conceding the point, I get this:

In any event, your replies have failed to impress me and I will now terminate this silly discussion.

This sounds familiar. Oh, yes. I remember now. I asked you a question on the "Contradictory Nativities..." thread and got the same dismissal. That one had a quote attached, though.

I guess where I lost you was asking for a defense. Is this the question that ran you off?:
"In fact, why don't you show me an "ism" that does not have a set of beliefs, or DOCTRINES attached to it." My replies may have "failed to impress" YOU, but at least they were replies.

You were the one who initiated this tangent with this:

"You seemed to maintain an open-minded and admirable decorum throughout this thread until this post. There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

Then attacked me with:

"This is why it's so hard to discuss things with people who have no idea what their talking about and who unfortunately ignore what is said to them only to end up incurring chagrin while they 'LOL' at their opponent because of their own initial misunderstanding. I was referring to the irrelevance of your bringing up of the suffix 'ism'. Just because a noun ends with 'ism' doesn't mean it has anything to do with 'doctrine', as you implied."

So, show me an "ism" which does not contain doctrine. Sheesh, defend SOMETHING, or admit error.

It seems like the only statement you'll defend is: "I should not have to defend any doctrine."

Peace, Mark

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Naturally. Only you do... That way, you do not have to be responsible for explaining why you believe what you believe... By keeping such things vague, you can avoid defending your position.

ad homs.

You are claiming that I am being dishonest in order to avoid defending my position.

Attack issues, not people right? Didn't I read that in the TOS somewhere?

"ad hom"? Hold on and get a grip.

My point of sarcasm is to point out your belief that YOU define what Atheism is, not the American Atheism "society" or whatever says. That is certainly not an ad hominem, nor have I accused you of being dishonest. You have set yourself up as THE authority on the definition of "atheism". Not me.

Making a statement that "I define what atheism means" is not necessarily being dishonest, so you can't even say I am implying a dishonest motive from your side...

where did I try to make a distinction between “lack of†and “no� There is none.

I am not playing semantics. I do not have to.

Naturally there is no difference... However, when you say "Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities" and it differs (according to you) from what Mark and the dictionary says "Atheism is the belief there are no deities", you aren't trying to make a distinction, nor are you playing semantics...

Of course not... ;-)

Regards

Again you infer that I was making this distinction. Please point (other than my different wording) to the area in any of my writing where I made this distinction or indicated that this was my disagreement.

I was addressing the entirity of the AA statement.

You know, the 99% of the rest of the statement by the AA.

An ad hom is an ad hom. You clearly indicated that I re-define atheism in such a manner so that I am not forced to defend it. That would be dishonest.

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Explain to me how it begs the question, other than your assertion that it does?

What happens after death? You tell me.

I disagree with a few of those statements.

Which ones do you agree with?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

Yes, each of those positions would need to be defended.

But, atheists do not necessarily hold to those positions, nor are they included in some atheistic mantra.

Atheism is the lack of/non belief in any supreme supernatural being.

To be honest, I doubt you will find any concern for any scripture in the majority of atheists across the world.

And the third question is one for psychology.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Oh, indeed, if that were true, it'd be even more of a leap to believe in 'God' and all the more reason why you can't 'disprove' him/it/whatever. How would you go about doing that, I must ask?

Well, first of all, people believe they experience God, while no one I am aware of claims to experience unicorns. Secondly, unicorns, if they exist, could be experienced and quantified empirically. To my knowledge, no one has counted even one unicorn in existence outside of fairy tale books. God is not experienced in the empirical world, so He cannot be disproven by His lack of being tested empirically. We would measure God's existence primarily through cause and effect and other such inferential means.

Again, this leads us to how one would disprove God's existence, which is necessary to BE an atheist in the first place. One must have some sort of principles or inferential data or philosophy as to why God DOES NOT exist - not "I doubt", but "He doesn't". The difference is whether one is agnostic or atheist.

But, the existence of 'God' *can* be verified, at least the Christian one. He's made appearances and talked to people in the past (presumably, according to the bible). On the other hand, the god of deism couldn't be verified since it's been assumed not to interact with humanity. Furthermore, while both (i.e., the Christian god and unicorns) are verifiable, neither is falsifiable. My analogy stands.

That God has appeared in the form of Jesus Christ is an act of faith based on a convergence of data that lead one to believe that He was (but not absolutely - this is why faith is important throughout Scriptures). Christians who make another claim are overlooking that fact.

The Christian God is not in of itself verifiable by empirical evidence. Unicorns are. Your analogy does not stand because they do not utilize the same means of evidence. Whether Jesus was God or not is based upon faith. Seeing an unicorn is not an act of faith.

That doesn't make god/s all the more reasonable. Numerous people throughout the course of history believed many things. People who were, otherwise, reasonable.

Of itself, that is correct. However, it again shows there is a difference between unicorns and God in the realm of "proof" that the human mind will accept as a viable explanation for cause and effect.

Yes, we all have reasons for our 'beliefs'. That cannot be denied. My reason for not believing in a god or god/s is because I know of no real evidence that they exists.

Again, Eric, what sort of evidence do you expect to find that would meet your standards of empirical measurement? Science cannot measure God - yet people accept His existence. Why? They set their standards of measurement elsewhere. All things are not empirically measured.

That's actually what you're asking me to prove: why I don't believe in god/s. That's like me asking you to show me evidence of your belief that there's 'converging inferential evidence' for the existence of 'God'. That's entirely different from me asking you to show me proof/evidence that he exists.

I see very little difference. You ask me why I believe in "y", I ask you why you believe in "not y". I believe we both should be able to explain our reasons. It is not irrational to ask "why don't you believe in God", as you said earlier. If your reason is "I discount the evidence", very well - what "evidence" would you accept? To touch Him? To see Him?

Agreed, to an extent. That is, unless we can all agree on what 'evidence' is. If we can't then discussion is meaningless. If everyone's standards of evidence are subjective, then there's no logic in asking each other to prove anything! ;-)

That is true, which is why I ask "what evidence would you accept"? And to be honest, I don't really think it is a worthwhile pursuit for me to even ask you this, because as I said before, from my own experiences, there won't BE "evidence" that ALONE makes you say ... "by golly, there is a God". Logical arguments very rarely convert anyone in either direction.

I don't mean to generalize, but your kind of sentiments recur in many of my dialogues on this kind of subject. I've encountered several theists who drag the debate down into equivocating with what 'evidence', 'proof', etc. means. Once you've done that, there's nothing to discuss.

I have transcended that above. Logical arguments aren't going to convince anyone who strongly holds to an opposite position. That's the way it is, Eric. People need to experience it, to perceive it through some experience, whether it is for or against God. The logic itself helps us to be secure in our beliefs, may be of use to someone on the fence and open to either side, (like I was once), but I am not aware of logic alone convincing someone of the opposite persuasion to change.

I once had a theist ask me: 'How can you be sure that we can trust our senses?

I don't follow such arguments because I live outside of the philosophy classroom, unlike our friends who are made in the mold of Descartes...

Or for another example, when I was a Christian I used to love to debate issues of inerrancy with other Christians (I still do). I wasn't an inerrantist, but after I made my case, the inerrantist told me: 'You can't trust in man's logic. It doesn't matter what man thinks. It only matters what God thinks'.

I think he was proving what I am saying above. Your logic didn't convince him because he believed he experienced God. Perception is reality...

Of course, by making that very assertion he defeated himself. After all, it mattered not what he thought about it. :-D

No, it is that empirical evidence is not the end of all "proofs".

So what you're really asking me to do is not disprove a god's existence (something that logically can't be done), you're asking me to show you evidence of why I believe I don't see the evidence for a god's existence. That's an entirely different demand, and ultimately fruitless.

I am not asking you for evidence - just reasons why you are atheist rather than agnostic.

But I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply showing you that, all else being equal, the burden of proof is not on my shoulders.

You are misunderstanding the burden I am asking from you. I am asking you to explain why you believe God does not exist rather than why you are unsure whether God exists or not. What pushed you from the later to the former? Which philosophical argument or experienced made you certain that God does not exist?

And that's really all I have the propensity to say about the matter. Your discussion of 'miracles', 'cause and effect', etc., really don't change the nature of what's taking place here.

[/quote]

If you mean that such cannot change your mind, I have already stated that over and over. I had hoped you have been following my discussions better. Logic doesn't convince the hard-liner. Talking about miracles won't convince you - I am aware of that. They DO support the theist's already-held beliefs, however.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Explain to me how it begs the question, other than your assertion that it does?

What happens after death? You tell me.

I disagree with a few of those statements.

Which ones do you agree with?

1. Our body ceases to function.

2.The part about not believing in any God/gods.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Again you infer that I was making this distinction. Please point (other than my different wording) to the area in any of my writing where I made this distinction or indicated that this was my disagreement.

August 28, 9:04 pm, you wrote:

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.
The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

First, you claim that the "American Atheist" doesn't dictate what atheism is... In other words, people cannot even agree on the meaning of a word... Motive? You tell me.

Second, you say "atheism is a lack of belief [of] any deities". You contrasted that with what Mark wrote "atheism is a belief in no deities". That you contrasted it and disagreed with Mark and the dictionary's definition tells anyone here that YOU ARE claiming there is a distinction between the two.

Again, then. I ask you why the dictionary's definition is wrong and yours says something else (besides written a different way). It is merely a distinction without a difference, a logical fallacy.

No ad hominem.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

That God has appeared in the form of Jesus Christ is an act of faith based on a convergence of data that lead one to believe that He was (but not absolutely - this is why faith is important throughout Scriptures). Christians who make another claim are overlooking that fact.

The Christian God is not in of itself verifiable by empirical evidence. Unicorns are. Your analogy does not stand because they do not utilize the same means of evidence. Whether Jesus was God or not is based upon faith. Seeing an unicorn is not an act of faith.

The Christian God is a theistic one, therefore is presumed to act on or within the natural world. That does make empirical testing possible by default (testing the inerrancy of the Bible, historical accuracy of anything contained in it ie. Exodus, Sodom, etc.). Therefore the analogy stands.

Do you think it would be possible for God to reveal himself to all of mankind? Do you think it is possible for him to let himself be seen in some capacity?

If so, then explain how it is different than the unicorn analogy. I can say that the unicorn does not like to be seen, and knows when anyone or anything capable of viewing it is around, and will immediately hide.

Now disprove it.

Now, if he were presumed to be deistic, and did not act within the natural world, then the analogy would be false.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Again you infer that I was making this distinction. Please point (other than my different wording) to the area in any of my writing where I made this distinction or indicated that this was my disagreement.

August 28, 9:04 pm, you wrote:

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.
The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

First, you claim that the "American Atheist" doesn't dictate what atheism is... In other words, people cannot even agree on the meaning of a word... Motive? You tell me.

Second, you say "atheism is a lack of belief [of] any deities". You contrasted that with what Mark wrote "atheism is a belief in no deities". That you contrasted it and disagreed with Mark and the dictionary's definition tells anyone here that YOU ARE claiming there is a distinction between the two.

Again, then. I ask you why the dictionary's definition is wrong and yours says something else (besides written a different way). It is merely a distinction without a difference, a logical fallacy.

No ad hominem.

Regards

Here is my original post.

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.

Note that there is no constrast to any particular part of the AA, nor is there any indication of my attempt to play semantics with "lack of/ no belief".

It just isn't there.

I disagree with everything in that statement, except for the "lack of / no belief", because THAT IS NOT a description of every atheist.

Atheists have one thing in common. They do not believe.

Atheists do not all believe a hospital should be built instead of a church. All atheists do not work together to better man kind, some, as many famously point out, want to dominate mankind (ie stalin etc.)

There is no such thing as the "atheist agenda". There are some atheists with certain agendas, and there are some without any agenda, and some with opposing agendas.

My point was that the only thing that connects them is that they do not believe that any God/gods exists.

That is the only part of the AA statement that is accurate ACROSS the wide spectrum of atheists.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

The Christian God is a theistic one

Huh? Is there a "god" that is not theistic? You see, vault, words have meaning... Atheism. Theism. It would be helpful if we were able to understand that and stick to the standard convention of what a word means as defined by a dictionary. Otherwise, discussion is futile.

therefore is presumed to act on or within the natural world.

What makes you say that a God must act WITHIN the natural world? The god of deism does NOT act within the natural world and yet, is a god...

That does make empirical testing possible by default (testing the inerrancy of the Bible, historical accuracy of anything contained in it ie. Exodus, Sodom, etc.). Therefore the analogy stands.

NO ONE has seen God. Even Christian Scriptures state that. We experience cause and effects, we experience what we believe is God via mysterious, transcendental and gifted experiences through various situations. However, the Bible or the events related in them, such as Exodus, is not an empirical testing of God HIMSELF. It is again, cause and effect. Seeing the Reed Sea part at a particular time and situation (miracle) points to a cause. But this cause is not measureable ITSELF. Analogy fails.

If a unicorn exists, we can see it, shoot it and eat it, etc...
By definition, God is spiritual and outside of time and space. He is not measurable in the empirical world.

Do you think it would be possible for God to reveal himself to all of mankind? Do you think it is possible for him to let himself be seen in some capacity?

[/quote]

Of course. But God doesn't appear as God is, but through a mediator in the form of flesh. Even Scriptures themselves state that the Son of God "condescended" or humbled Himself to take on flesh - thus, this is not God's ordinary form. For example, take the attribute that God is "present everywhere". However, Jesus was not present everywhere as a man. Jesus was the ultimate sacrament of God - Jesus told us the type of Person God is - loving, caring, willing to sacrifice for our sakes. But we know that God took on the form of man - the man is not God's form.

By saying this, it becomes evident that the proclamation "Jesus is God" is a faith-based proclamation, not one of scientific measurement.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Here is my original post.

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.

Note that there is no constrast to any particular part of the AA, nor is there any indication of my attempt to play semantics with "lack of/ no belief".

It just isn't there....

Atheists have one thing in common. They do not believe.

Of course not... ;-)

Please note your definitions and what was said before, where you disagreed with Mark above

Note the difference between your definition of atheism as being "a lack of belief [of] any deities", which you defined August 28, and your "atheists have one thing in common, they do not believe [that God exists]",or "My point was that the only thing that connects them is that they do not believe that any God/gods exists." which you now define?

Again, you are equating "lack" with "no belief"... But earlier, they were contrasted as you corrected the definition from "no" to "lack"...

Is a lack of belief = to no belief?

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Huh? Is there a "god" that is not theistic? You see, vault, words have meaning... Atheism. Theism. It would be helpful if we were able to understand that and stick to the standard convention of what a word means as defined by a dictionary. Otherwise, discussion is futile.

Yes, there are theistic, deistic, and pantheistic.

Believing in any style of those would make you not an atheist.

What makes you say that a God must act WITHIN the natural world? The god of deism does NOT act within the natural world and yet, is a god...

Which was rather my point. Theistic gods act within the natural world. A deistic does not. His analogy, presumably dealt with YHWH, which is theistic.

NO ONE has seen God. Even Christian Scriptures state that. We experience cause and effects, we experience what we believe is God via mysterious, transcendental and gifted experiences through various situations. However, the Bible or the events related in them, such as Exodus, is not an empirical testing of God HIMSELF. It is again, cause and effect. Seeing the Reed Sea part at a particular time and situation (miracle) points to a cause. But this cause is not measureable ITSELF. Analogy fails.

If a unicorn exists, we can see it, shoot it and eat it, etc...
By definition, God is spiritual and outside of time and space. He is not measurable in the empirical world.

You are asserting that it fails without substantiating why it does. If a god has ever acted throughout history (ie. A theistic god), it exposes that god to being tested empirically.

Therefore the burden of proof is upon the believer of the theistic god.

And you totally skipped the part where I assigned the unicorn the ability to avoid ever being seen. Now, answer me how you can be a non-believer in a unicorn that never allows itself to be seen or measured.

Are you just agnostic to that unicorn?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Here is my original post.

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.

Note that there is no constrast to any particular part of the AA, nor is there any indication of my attempt to play semantics with "lack of/ no belief".

It just isn't there....

Atheists have one thing in common. They do not believe.

Of course not... ;-)

Please note your definitions and what was said before, where you disagreed with Mark above

Note the difference between your definition of atheism as being "a lack of belief [of] any deities", which you defined August 28, and your "atheists have one thing in common, they do not believe [that God exists]",or "My point was that the only thing that connects them is that they do not believe that any God/gods exists." which you now define?

Again, you are equating "lack" with "no belief"... But earlier, they were contrasted as you corrected the definition from "no" to "lack"...

Is a lack of belief = to no belief?

Regards

please point to the thread where I corrected "no belief" to "lack of".

and please explain the constant sarcasm.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Huh? Is there a "god" that is not theistic? You see, vault, words have meaning... Atheism. Theism. It would be helpful if we were able to understand that and stick to the standard convention of what a word means as defined by a dictionary. Otherwise, discussion is futile.

Yes, there are theistic, deistic, and pantheistic.

Believing in any style of those would make you not an atheist.

Excuse me? Did you note that "theistic" is the root word of "deistic" and "pantheistic"? The Belief in ANY god, whether one, two, or many, is, by definition, "theistic".

The Christian God is "monotheistic", as opposed to deistic or pantheistic...

What makes you say that a God must act WITHIN the natural world? The god of deism does NOT act within the natural world and yet, is a god...

Which was rather my point. Theistic gods act within the natural world. A deistic does not. His analogy, presumably dealt with YHWH, which is theistic.

YHWH is "MONOTHEISTIC". And "deistic" beliefs do not necessitate that their gods do not act within nature. You are confusing English Deism with true deistic religions, esp. those found in ancient oriental places (dualistic religions).

You are asserting that it fails without substantiating why it does. If a god has ever acted throughout history (ie. A theistic god), it exposes that god to being tested empirically.

I have explained in several posts why it fails.

And yet again, "theistic god". Please note all beliefs of god are theistic... Definitions have meaning and without them, further conversation is futile. You continue to ignore that, and I just don't have time to play these games where words change meanings.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

The thing is, American Atheist doesn't dictate what atheism is.

I disagree with a few of those statements. Athiesm is a lack of belief any deities. I do not understand why it is made out to be more complicated than what it is.

Sorry, Vault. I should have been more clear. You said you disagree with "a few of those statements", could you please post the statements you AGREE with from the atheist manifesto. :D

This, from American Atheists:

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super†natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.â€Â


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While many Atheists have an intense interest in religions, enjoy debating theists, and can intelligently discuss the various holy books, Atheism can be discussed and celebrated for its own sake.

The first entry in this section is a transcript of a speech given in 1962 by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. It has a short and simple title: Atheism."

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It is not an atheist mantra, nor do I care to go over it point by point and show what I agree with, nor is it the least relevant to the thread.

Now, if you want to know some of my personal beliefs, create a thread listing personal questions and I will answer them.