Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat vast darkness is actually the delusion of a loving god. I cite the several hundred million deaths at the hands of despots in the past 100 years or so while the killing in the name of religion goes on as we speak today, yet your deity says nothing.
it is true that even a little light cannot be overcome by such a great darkness but look how vast that darkness is.
But you and the rest of the theistic community of several billion thinks that is fine, no problem, our god is a loving god.
Despite infants getting shot to death or burned to death in ovens.
Real loving god you have there.
" .. once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required... "
Now that you have been introduced to the idea of the present king of France, your mind has been irrevocably altered. You cannot now return to your previous state of non-committal innocence. The present king of France must be either bald or not bald, and you are required assume a position on this issue. You cannot not render a judgment: So which is it? A simple "bald" or "not bald", please.
Originally posted by moonbusThe baldness (or lack thereof) of the king of France is no where near as significant as the existence or non existence of God and I would say it is not really a philosophical idea.
" .. once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intel ...[text shortened]... issue. You cannot not render a judgment: So which is it? A simple "bald" or "not bald", please.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk"You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between." But you cannot not take a position; your own words. So which is it? Bald or not bald. Stop waffling.
The baldness (or lack thereof) of the king of France is no where near as significant as the existence or non existence of God and I would say it is not really a philosophical idea.
EDIT: if you think the present king of France is not a philosophical idea, you're wrong. It comes under the heading of counter-factuals.
http://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2013/05/18/bertrand-russell-is-the-present-king-of-france-bald/
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYour error here is to assume, that because God is a significant issue for you, it must also be a significant issue for an atheist. (And further to this, only quantify an atheist as such if they have actively rejected God, rather than someone who simply lives a life without God).
The baldness (or lack thereof) of the king of France is no where near as significant as the existence or non existence of God and I would say it is not really a philosophical idea.
And the problem with the idea that there is only one true religion is that everyone claims 'their' religion is that one. (No one every says there is only one true religion, and it's not mine).
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAnd I think there can be no 'true religion' even if God exists. It would be impossible for a person to know everything about God and it is remarkably difficult to communicate what a person does know to another person. Thus in every religion in existence today we find every member has slightly different beliefs.
Assuming absolute truth, and God, exists (and all religions are mutually exclusive) I think there can only be one true religion.
Even if a true religion were possible, there is not good reason to think such a religion actually exists.
I personally think that if a god existed and he wanted people to know about him he would make it pretty clear and either tell everybody or have a very good reason for restricting it to a particular subset. The former is incompatible with what we observe and the latter is incompatible with the concept of a loving god that wants everyone to believe in him (Christianity).
By the look of it, we're not going to get to the actual question this thread posed, which is why some people are atheists, because some theists here can't get their minds round the idea what atheism is and keep deflecting the thread by raising specious objections to what atheists say atheism is and keep telling atheists what they think atheism must be.
Imagine the following: someone starts a thread titled "Why are some people Christians?", and instead of Christians saying why they are Christians, atheists hijack the thread and keep shouting down the Christians with vapid objections why Christianity isn't what Christians say it is, and anyway it isn't even a real religion. Sheesh.
In case anyone here is still interested, I am prepared to state, in one sentence, why I am an atheist. Really, no kidding.
Originally posted by moonbusmeh lets just cut to the chase, Atheists are Wendy boofheads, we know it and you know it, problem solved, panic over. 😵
By the look of it, we're not going to get to the actual question this thread posed, which is why some people are atheists, because some theists here can't get their minds round the idea what atheism is and keep deflecting the thread by raising specious objections to what atheists say atheism is and keep telling atheists what they ...[text shortened]... ll interested, I am prepared to state, in one sentence, why I am an atheist. Really, no kidding.
Originally posted by moonbusI believe I gave my answer near the start of the thread. And I don't think I was the only one. The objections came about because I and others said that we were born atheists. I was briefly Christian after that, but others have been atheist since birth.
By the look of it, we're not going to get to the actual question this thread posed, which is why some people are atheists, ......
Originally posted by moonbusFalse dichotomy. Have you stopped beating your wife, a simple yes or no please. sheesh
" .. once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intel ...[text shortened]... issue. You cannot not render a judgment: So which is it? A simple "bald" or "not bald", please.
Originally posted by googlefudge...Special interest groups can explain their beliefs, of course. But they don't get to unilaterally declare definitions that everyone else must use.
My definition [the one I use and is used by the major atheist organisations] is beautifully simple and robust.
There is absolutely no need to change it, make it more complicated, or add caveats, etc.
An atheist is anyone not a theist....
Atheists disbelieve in gods. That is more accurate than the "lack of belief" favored by you and your Atheist groups. Ask any atheist (strong or weak!) if she disbelieves in gods. Then go ask a baby.
Originally posted by apathistMy point exactly. I have been parodying Fetchmyjunk who thinks one must believe either that God exists or that God does not exist. I reject the question, just as I reject the question whether I have stopped beating my wife. Evidently this is beyond Fetchmyjunk's comprehension.
False dichotomy. Have you stopped beating your wife, a simple yes or no please. sheesh
Originally posted by moonbusActually I clearly comprehend that you are just evading the question, because you know your position would be untenable.
My point exactly. I have been parodying Fetchmyjunk who thinks one must believe either that God exists or that God does not exist. I reject the question, just as I reject the question whether I have stopped beating my wife. Evidently this is beyond Fetchmyjunk's comprehension.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry, I missed that, having joined the discussion later.
I believe I gave my answer near the start of the thread. And I don't think I was the only one. The objections came about because I and others said that we were born atheists. I was briefly Christian after that, but others have been atheist since birth.