Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Repeatedly singling out irrelevant portions of commentary and asking questions about them while ignoring the rest, is a pattern of behavior I have come across countless times in these types of discussions. It is my humble opinion that this pattern of behavior is usually due to either one being obtuse, or having an issue with obsession or compulsion. Of ...[text shortened]... t call OCD a mental illness. It's a common disorder, and I have it myself, though not severely.
You seem fixated on talking about a mental disorder and pulling our conversation in that direction.
Originally posted by @fmf Here is an assertion ~ a motion for debate, as it were ~ based on something another poster said earlier today"
[b]Atheism has a superficial appeal that can pull in a few people but it ultimately sputters out: it doesn't have any truly persuasive message.
To my way of thinking, atheism is a lack of belief, Furthermore, it is unaffected by the claims o ...[text shortened]... messages is surely a matter for people operating in the realm of competing religious doctrines?[/b]
Originally posted by @romans1009 Atheism does have a message - There is no God. Underpinning that message is a lack of absolute morality and lack of accountability.
Duh!
Someone recently used the term "wishy-washy."
There is nothing more wishy-washy than the atheist message. Because these days, it doesn't mean "there is no God." It means, "I simply lack belief in gods." [eye roll]
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey I'm answering your questions fully and directly.
You are the one who started with the deflection about mental health when I was trying to talk about the thread topic and the definition of atheism. Please just start your own thread on mental disorders.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey There is nothing more wishy-washy than the atheist message. Because these days, it doesn't mean "there is no God." It means, "I simply lack belief in gods."
There is overwhelming evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is scant, if any, evidence to support other religions. That’s just a fact, Jack.
I dismiss all the other (false) gods due to lack of evidence. How does that square with Stephen Roberts dismissing the God of Christianity? Has he looked at and examined ...[text shortened]... ed the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection with an open mind and heart come away believers.
“...as atheists who have examined the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection with an open mind and heart come away believers.”
And, if someone has examined the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection and not come away a believer, he clearly did not do it with an open mind and heart.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Seriously? Because it's a logical contradiction.
Claiming there are no gods is a positive claim that requires proof. Ironically it's the one position that can't be proven beyond any doubt.
Saying you lack belief isn't a positive claim, and essentially boils down to a matter of opinion. Something that need not be proven.
Yes. Seriously. I think "atheist" can mean both. It does, after all, pertain to supernatural beings so it's all squarely within the realm of conjecture and opinion, regardless of whether one is a theist or an atheist. That's why terms like agnostic theist and agnostic atheist help to hone down what the position is that one takes.
'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'
Stephen Roberts
To which I say to the atheist, "I just believe in 1 more god than you do."
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Seriously? Because it's a logical contradiction.
Claiming there are no gods is a positive claim that requires proof. Ironically it's the one position that can't be proven beyond any doubt.
Saying you lack belief isn't a positive claim, and essentially boils down to a matter of opinion. Something that need not be proven.
Wouldn’t you agree that the nonexistence of gods whose existence can be proven to be logically impossible, can be proven? It’s the same thing, or at least is proven the same way.
Originally posted by @js357 Wouldn’t you agree that the nonexistence of gods whose existence can be proven to be logically impossible, can be proven? It’s the same thing, or at least is proven the same way.
I would not agree that the nonexistence of God has been, or ever will be, proven. If that happened, the world would become atheists in no time. By definition (God in the spirit realm, mankind in a physical universe) we don't and won't ever have the instruments to peer outside our reality. It would be like a fish in a fish bowl peering outside the house to the streets and the sky. It would be like a "Sim" (as in the famous software game) gaining self awareness and seeing into your world outside the monitor. Can't happen.
Originally posted by @tom-wolsey Saying you lack belief isn't a positive claim, and essentially boils down to a matter of opinion. Something that need not be proven.
If you want to go around telling yourself that your beliefs in the supernatural need to be proven true to people, that's a matter for you. For me, your religious faith is something that need not be proven to me. I will take you at your word when you tell me that, in your opinion, Christ rose from the dead and you will have everlasting life etc. I extend the same courtesy to my Muslim neighbour. You ought to take my word for it, too, when I tell you I lack belief in a god or gods. The different perceptions we have essentially boil down to a matter of opinion.
Atheism doesn't have a persuasive message...
23 May '18 20:311 edit
Back to Top