For whatever reason, I first encountered the OP among Recommended Posts and found myself reading through all seven pages of the discussion (so far). If the thread has a topic (and it does of course) it is entirely concerned with responding to the ten minute video supplied in the OP. That topic has been relentlessly pursued in debate with someone (Robbie of course) who not only has evidently never watched the video but, like someone walking into doors, relentlessly produces one after another of the positions described and refuted in the video. Over and over, the temptation is to post a reply to his comments saying - "But Robbie, that argument is covered very neatly in the video and it is answered there."
At one point he suggests that referring to a video is what RJ Hinds does and we can all agree that watching RJH's video links will cause brain melt. Sadly, in the specific case of this thread, that video is the entire point and topic of debate here. It is a bit like debating a Shakespeare play that nobody has ever read - something English graduates are expert at of course. The trouble here is that, we who have watched the video find ourselves continually raising our hand to say - "Please Sir, ask me, I know the answer to that one."
One clarification of the video I think might be worth making. It does not claim that every atheist has no belief about the existence of God. I for example, have a firm belief in the non existence of God and suffer no equivocations in the territory of agnosticism, so I am far less amenable than the presenter of the video appears. But no, what it claims is different - that in order to be defined as an atheist, it is sufficient that I have no belief either way. That being so, it would be good if comments about atheists were less sweeping and recognised that atheists have diverse opinions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen I lived in Zambia, I often felt significant 'theistic pressure'. Almost everyone is Christian and they presume that you are too until you state otherwise. If you do state otherwise, you are frowned upon. There are a lot of different denominations, but in general people give more respect to those of a different denomination than the do to someone like me who says they do not believe in God.
Theistic pressure?
Here in Cape Town however I have never felt a similar pressure. There is a variety of religions and I suspect a lot of atheists. Certainly many people do not talk about religion at all most of the time and don't show overt signs of being a member of any given religion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI fully understand that Great King Rat, the atheist, has a different belief position from me, another atheist. I expect there are still other atheists who hold beliefs different to both of us. You're being very stubborn about holding to your incorrect definition of 'atheist', aren't you? Why is that do you think?
No you have found no compelling evidence. That is something quite different from someone like Great King Rat who has emphatically denied the existence of gods and has made a truth claim that his atheism is true. You have evidently made no such claims. I have repeated this three times why you failed to discern the difference I cannot say. One feels that one would be better off talking it out with a cat.
And, for one final (no doubt vain) time, agnosticism is NOT the position of being undecided whether or not there is a god. Agnosticism is the position of believing that it is impossible to know whether there is or is not a god. Can you see the subtle difference here Robbie?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatbecause I am able to discern the difference between a truth claim and a non truth claim, between an agnostic and an atheist. You say you have no compelling evidence, that reeks to me of agnosticism. 😀
I fully understand that Great King Rat, the atheist, has a different belief position from me, another atheist. I expect there are still other atheists who hold beliefs different to both of us. You're being very stubborn about holding to your incorrect definition of 'atheist', aren't you? Why is that do you think?
And, for one final (no doubt vain) ...[text shortened]... ossible to know whether there is or is not a god. Can you see the subtle difference here Robbie?
05 May 15
Originally posted by finneganDude I posted a Stevie Wonder video for the edification of my atheists friends and I doubt any of the excerpts that I posted were refuted. There may have been counter arguments posted but refuted is too strong a term. The reasoning that was provided by the article that I cited from was illustrated, drawn from well know sources and admirably reasoned.
For whatever reason, I first encountered the OP among Recommended Posts and found myself reading through all seven pages of the discussion (so far). If the thread has a topic (and it does of course) it is entirely concerned with responding to the ten minute video supplied in the OP. That topic has been relentlessly pursued in debate with someone (Robbie of ...[text shortened]... f comments about atheists were less sweeping and recognised that atheists have diverse opinions.
Originally posted by twhiteheadExcept African football players who cannot but help give glory to God by pointing at the sky every goal that they score and who cross themselves upon entering the field of play and leaving it 😀
When I lived in Zambia, I often felt significant 'theistic pressure'. Almost everyone is Christian and they presume that you are too until you state otherwise. If you do state otherwise, you are frowned upon. There are a lot of different denominations, but in general people give more respect to those of a different denomination than the do to someone like ...[text shortened]... gion at all most of the time and don't show overt signs of being a member of any given religion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you totally failed to read my post given your largely incoherent response. Either you didn't understand what I said, or did not want to understand it. Since I suspect the latter, let me just leave you with this:
Please stop projecting non realities, you are misrepresenting my stance.
The word atheist when I use it, means 'does not currently hold a positive belief in a God or gods.'
You may have your own definition for the word, but do not assume that when I use it I am using your definition because I am not.
05 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadSome of us refer to what yo defined as an agnostic.
And you totally failed to read my post given your largely incoherent response. Either you didn't understand what I said, or did not want to understand it. Since I suspect the latter, let me just leave you with this:
The word atheist when I use it, means 'does not currently hold a positive belief in a God or gods.'
You may have your own definition for the word, but do not assume that when I use it I am using your definition because I am not.
Agnostic means a person who views the existence of ultimate truth as unknowable, particularly when it comes to the existence of God.
Charles Darwin is an example of a famous agnostic.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/agnostic
Originally posted by twhiteheadShoosh you will do what you are told and like it. 😀
And you totally failed to read my post given your largely incoherent response. Either you didn't understand what I said, or did not want to understand it. Since I suspect the latter, let me just leave you with this:
The word atheist when I use it, means 'does not currently hold a positive belief in a God or gods.'
You may have your own definition for the word, but do not assume that when I use it I am using your definition because I am not.
06 May 15
Originally posted by C HessThere is nothing rational about this position.
...why atheism is the rational position. 🙂
[youtube QualiaSoup - Lack of belief...]sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube]
It is not the rational position but instead the lazy ignorant mans position.
Referring to the man who is ignorant because he is too insincere and lazy to to do what is necessary to enlighten himself about the true nature of God and Self.
He is "soooo" insincere and lazy he cannot be bothered to apply true spirituality into his life, because he has foolishly decided that God does not exist even before he has even applied himself "to that true spirituality".
Understood another way...............He doesn't want God to exist because he has been teaching atheistic cheating science at middle school for 15 years // and therefore he likes his comfortable little niche // and does not want some God messing it up.
Also he has done ZERO to understand true knowledge......................in that he doesn't even know where to find true knowledge // which would give him a completely different spiritual mind set // which would make all the puzzle pieces of life fall in place // and he can then finally reject the absurd notion that everything has come about by a random accidental big-bluff ( sorry I mean bang.)
06 May 15
Originally posted by DasaI believe that truth is found in the Holy Bible and you believe it is in the Vedic writings and the atheist and agnotic do not accept absolute truth, but believe it changes as man's knowledge increases.
There is nothing rational about this position.
It is not the rational position but instead the lazy ignorant mans position.
Referring to the man who is ignorant because he is too insincere and lazy to to do what is necessary to enlighten himself about the true nature of God and Self.
He is "soooo" insincere and lazy he cannot be bothered to apply true ...[text shortened]... urd notion that everything has come about by a random accidental big-bluff ( sorry I mean bang.)
