The Existence of Athiests

Originally posted by josephw
You say you don't believe that God exists, but if you were to peel away the layers of so called "evidence" you have constructed around the heart of your existence you would know you are created. It is perfectly natural for one to deny that God exists, because we are born with a sin nature which is selfish to the core and wants nothing to do with it's maker. ...[text shortened]... God means making oneself accountable to God, and that is just something the "self" abhors.

Well said mttw.....

I actually whole heartedly believe we could just as easily have been created by a string of random chance that goes something like this.....

Inorganic material - biological material - LUCA - Eukaryotes etc. - multiple celled organisms - vertebrates - homo - Us

Abiogenesis may not be understood but I have no problem accepting it.... and the rest is actually pretty well understood.

I accept that you believe in your God..... I personally don't care what you believe....
Why can you not accept that I find your god slightly ridiculous and impossible to believe in? Just as you think the same about me not believing in him. I accept your that you have absolute faith in your beliefs, can't you accept that I have just as strong a conviction in my correctness as you do.
And since there is no way of indisputably proving who's right both stand points are equally valid.....

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual, you are trying to be misleading by making irrelevant statements. Whether or not you used the word 'guilt' is quite irrelevant to the content of my post. I did not say you used the word, nor even claim you implied it. However, it does apply quite well to the implication of your post which was that I require comfort. If not due to guilt, then why ...[text shortened]... t my rejection of Bible 'truths'. What that has to do with my past beliefs I cannot fathom.

As usual, you are trying to be misleading by making irrelevant statements.
The statement is totally relevant to the topic, as seen in your response.

Whether or not you used the word 'guilt' is quite irrelevant to the content of my post. I did not say you used the word, nor even claim you implied it. However, it does apply quite well to the implication of your post which was that I require comfort.
Howz that exactly? I didn't imply it or I did? What are you laboring to say?

If not due to guilt, then why do you think I would require comfort? Please enlighten me as to what you actually meant since you deny the obvious conclusion.
The obvious conclusion for you is that guilt is somehow involved. As stated, that says more about your concepts of God ans spirituality than anything else. That being said, everyone is self-justifying as a rule. We need to know that our position toward fill-in-the-blank is the right one. While any number of emotions may enter into the picture afterwards, the antecedent is purely a psychological function, sans emotion.

Originally posted by mtthw
'Guilt' is hardly the focal point of the initial post. Any comments on the general question?

My comment was directed toward the general question in that he specified 'so many Christians' and used my words as proof of the same. In that, he erred. While I do not argue against his position that many Christians do cite such motivations as claimed, I steadfastly deny employing the same here.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
You were obviously assessing that atheist people were simply guilty about not following God's word, and that they are just pretending not to believe in God. If you don't mean something, don't say it.

If you don't mean something, don't say it.
Well, I'll give it a shot, but we may be here awhile...

Originally posted by agryson
If guilt is seen by god as a sin, why are so many theists, from hindus to catholics, laboured from birth with original sins? In the case of those theists who don't believe they are born with original sin, why do they use guilt, fear and threats of eternal damnation to communicate the message? I don't mean to say that all theists use such methods, but it's certainly an incredibly common characteristic.

Absolutely agreed. I'd say that most within the groups you cited have got the spiritual life dead wrong. Bad theology. Bad, bad, bad theology.

Originally posted by josephw
You say you don't believe that God exists, but if you were to peel away the layers of so called "evidence" you have constructed around the heart of your existence you would know you are created. It is perfectly natural for one to deny that God exists, because we are born with a sin nature which is selfish to the core and wants nothing to do with it's maker. ...[text shortened]... God means making oneself accountable to God, and that is just something the "self" abhors.

Do you honestly believe that? Have you thought about it? You sound like one of those psychologists who think that every thought you have is due to something that happened to you when you were 1 and your father shouted at you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Howz that exactly? I didn't imply it or I did? What are you laboring to say?

1. You implied it.
2. I did not accuse you of doing so.
3. You accused me of accusing you of using it and presented as proof the fact that you didn't use it.
Clearly you simply wanted to talk nonsense to try to avoid addressing the true content of the post.

The obvious conclusion for you is that guilt is somehow involved.
Can you offer any other reasonable conclusion? I challenge you to do so, or admit you are simply trying to avoid the issue by side tracking the discussion and denying your own words.

The only sense of guilt I have that has anything to do with religion is that I once pissed on a church door.

And even that amount of guilt is minimal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. You implied it.
2. I did not accuse you of doing so.
3. You accused me of accusing you of using it and presented as proof the fact that you didn't use it.
Clearly you simply wanted to talk nonsense to try to avoid addressing the true content of the post.

[b]The obvious conclusion for you is that guilt is somehow involved.
Can you offer any o ...[text shortened]... re simply trying to avoid the issue by side tracking the discussion and denying your own words.[/b]

You poor little guy! You just don't know if you're coming or going, do you?

1. You implied it.
2. I did not accuse you of doing so.

As if these two aren't contradictory enough, compare them to your original statement, below:

I did not say you used the word, nor even claim you implied it. However, it does apply quite well to the implication of your post which was that I require comfort.

Sleep well.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You poor little guy! You just don't know if you're coming or going, do you?

[b]1. You implied it.
2. I did not accuse you of doing so.

As if these two aren't contradictory enough, compare them to your original statement, below:

I did not say you used the word, nor even claim you implied it. However, it does apply quite well to the implication of your post which was that I require comfort.

Sleep well.[/b]

You are either:
1. incapable of following a conversation.
2. incapable of comprehending basic English.
3. trying to avoid answering the question.

My statements do not contradict themselves in any way. Since you clearly cannot see that for one of the reasons above, I will explain. In my initial post, I did not accuse you of using or implying the word 'guilt'.
In my subsequent posts, I have done so.

Now, take up my challenge, and show how any other conclusion from your post is remotely reasonable.
I draw your attention specifically to this bit:
it makes rejection of the biblical truths (and therefore, accountability to the same) that much more manageable
Please explain why such rejection would be considered difficult to manage if I have no guilt about the matter.

Then explain how you went from there, to doing a psychological analysis of my statement and making conclusions about what beliefs I had 20 years ago.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have encountered a number of theists on this site and off, who don't seem to believe in the existence of atheists.
For example:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But I know it must bring you great comfort in believing such nonsense: it makes rejection of the biblical truths (and therefore, accountability to the same) that much more manageable. ...[text shortened]... uilt? What is so hard about accepting that some people simply do not believe that God exists?

I'm something of a theist but the fact of the matter is that I have some admiration for atheists. Really, the extremes of theism and atheism have the same problem: lack of any evidence to support their claim. I would thus think that both positions are illogical in that it should be presumed that either position would change in the face of convincing evidence. Such evidence does not exist but if it did, would you or I be convinced? I think that's a personal choice. If I had sufficient evidence that 'God' did not exist then I guess I'd have to buck up and just accept it.

I think most people are agnostic on some level: Given 'evidence' or 'proof' they will have to accept what is. And please understand I'm speaking philosophically, hypothetically, because in this existence it would appear such 'proof' cannot exist.

I tend toward theism but I'm not absolute about it. I just don't know, and neither does anyone else. Given the choice of attributing what I don't know, especially about the prospective of existence beyond death, and calling it the domain of 'God', or flatly stating that I somehow know that there is nothing, I choose the former. I'll get to find out for sure, just like everyone else.

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm something of a theist but the fact of the matter is that I have some admiration for atheists. Really, the extremes of theism and atheism have the same problem: lack of any evidence to support their claim. I would thus think that both positions are illogical in that it should be presumed that either position would change in the face of convincing evidenc ...[text shortened]... , I choose the former. I'll get to find out for sure, just like everyone else.

Well, Im not particularly extreme in my beliefs, but in my head I have come to the conclusion that god can't exist.

youre correct about the lack of evidence also. But if you read a lot of the threads here its very apparent that many theists who post here actually believe that Atheists are simply closet theists who are being rebellious or difficult, or that they're in denial. Which is down right frustrating when one is trying to have a conversation.....

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm something of a theist but the fact of the matter is that I have some admiration for atheists. Really, the extremes of theism and atheism have the same problem: lack of any evidence to support their claim.

I dispute that there is a lack of evidence (for either argument). It is a matter of how convincing you find the evidence and how you judge its validity. I am atheist because I find the evidence that God (as described to me by various theists) does not exist, very convincing. I also believe in the utility of the scientific method, and if one uses that method, the conclusion would be that God does not exist or at best is highly unlikely to exist - depending on the specific definition of God put forward.
Also, I find some definitions of God to be internally inconsistent or illogical and I consider those to be disprovable via logic without the need to consider reality at all.

I would thus think that both positions are illogical in that it should be presumed that either position would change in the face of convincing evidence.
Agreed

Such evidence does not exist but if it did, would you or I be convinced? I think that's a personal choice. If I had sufficient evidence that 'God' did not exist then I guess I'd have to buck up and just accept it.
It depends on whether or not you let it be 'convincing evidence'.

Given the choice of attributing what I don't know, especially about the prospective of existence beyond death, and calling it the domain of 'God', or flatly stating that I somehow know that there is nothing, I choose the former. I'll get to find out for sure, just like everyone else.
It merely takes a few thought experiments to show that any concepts of your existence beyond death are illogical and therefore proof of the non-existence of it is simply not required.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are either:
1. incapable of following a conversation.
2. incapable of comprehending basic English.
3. trying to avoid answering the question.

My statements do not contradict themselves in any way. Since you clearly cannot see that for one of the reasons above, I will explain. In my initial post, I did not accuse you of using or implying the word ...[text shortened]... logical analysis of my statement and making conclusions about what beliefs I had 20 years ago.

You are either:
1. high.
2. not high, but very close to being high.
3. just plain obstinate.

This is (should be) as plain as the nose on your face (that's the thing real close to the middle of your face, above your mouth and below your eyes with two holes toward the front--- one of the holes probably has your finger in it right now). And, for some reason beyond comprehension you are unable to see the issue clearly, thankfully, we are only a scant two pages into the discussion, thereby making going back to page one that much less of an effort for you. Let's start there, shall we? On page one, in the very first post to this thread that you created, you wrote (among other things) the following statement:

"Why is it that so many Christians are convinced that Atheists like myself are somehow closet 'believers' racked with guilt?"

Immediately prior to this statement, you quoted my comment regarding your rejection of biblical truths. I challenged your assertion that my comment inferred, implied or stated in any fashion any affinity of any kind with the concept of the emotion of guilt. Instead, it was your conclusion that--- as admittedly is the case with some Christians--- I, too, held that rejection of said biblical truths automatically transfers guilt on the one so rejecting.

And yet, you persist in self-canceling declarations with regard to my position: you open the thread with a post that posits my comment as illustrative proof for your argument, then declare only subsequently was such accusation made real. I immediately challenged your argument based upon your incorrect application of my comment. You countered with a weak defense but eventually arrived at the same spot, namely, that I am saying your rejection is fueled by guilt... which I still have not said.

Please explain why such rejection would be considered difficult to manage if I have no guilt about the matter.
Let's do this the easy way. Imagine if I (the raging theist) were to come upon evidence which convinced me of the delusory nature of God and conversely, the iron-clad proof of not only abiogenesis devoid of any outside force, but self-creating diverse life to boot. In other words, convincing evidence for the wholesale rejection of God and all that He represents to my psyche. But what if I persisted in my belief toward God? In the face of (to me) overwhelming evidence otherwise, would my rejection of the non-God world inspire even a smidgen of guilt toward this alleged reality?

Instead of guilt, I would have beliefs unsupported by my own judgement--- a house divided against itself. I fail to see where guilt would enter in this scenario. Perhaps you can tell me how you see the same.

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm something of a theist but the fact of the matter is that I have some admiration for atheists. Really, the extremes of theism and atheism have the same problem: lack of any evidence to support their claim. I would thus think that both positions are illogical in that it should be presumed that either position would change in the face of convincing evidenc ...[text shortened]... , I choose the former. I'll get to find out for sure, just like everyone else.

Are you 'agnostic' regarding the existence of the tooth fairy?