ELECTROGOD

Wow, you've taken what is a POSITION (atheism) in light of an assertion (that there is an invisible god-being) and tried to label that position as a belief. That's called making shit up to fit your own argument. You seem good at it but it doesn't make it so.
Oh, fuck! where to start with that one!
See above.
Jesus Christ, you've got like a third grade understanding of this stuff. There is more to the make up of a nihilist than just not believing in gods.
So you are looking for us to provide you with a direct and similar replacment for your belief system that you would like if we don't agree with it? Why would we do that if we don't agree with it? The very nature of your belief system is what is fucked up and we are saying that the world doesn't need anything like it, it can do fine without a belief system based in fiction. How do we know? From personal experience, we don't live by fiction and life is good (depending on personal circumstances).
If you think that you've learned everything you need to know about atheism from reading philosophy then think again.
Except that they would then have to be considered just as irrational & incoherent as you accuse us of being......but then if you then apply rational thought then your subjective beliefs will show as being irrational and incoherent when compared to our non-beliefs as no assertions about the existence of a supernatural god-being have ever been substantiated...EVER! That just leaves reality...something we like.

Avatar

Well, since God is supposedly the one who set up the system in the first place, he's the one to blame when his system mnisses perfectly good people isn't he?
Except that omnipotence and ominescence effectively invalidate free choice.
The Bible does include those words describing your god. The only problem with it is that the same Bible displays your god as being anything but.

Jobar

BANZAI!!!

Jobar leaps onto squirming dogpile of atheists, looking for a clear shot with hob-nailled jackboots

('Scuse me, Sven, TomboyMom, BBB)
(Beg pardon, Blackwater, ELECTROGOD)
(Ooops! Sorry about the toes, Johnny)

:devil3:

Harrumph Harrumph!


Let's start off with something I've been just dyin' to ask Haran, since he's invited us to-
Name one. Just one.

You seem quite offended that there are 'evangelical' atheists. OK, while I'm not as enthusiastic as some, I qualify as one of those. In the words of a far better writer and speaker than me-

"So far as I am concerned, I most cheerfully admit that most Christians are honest, most ministers sincere. We do not attack them; we attack their creed. We accord to them the same rights that we ask for ourselves.

We believe that the frightful text, "He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned," has covered the earth with blood.

It has filled the heart with arrogance, cruelty, and murder.

It has caused the religious wars;
bound hundreds of thousands to the stake;
founded inquisitions;
filled dungeons;
invented instruments of torture;
taught the mother to hate her child;
imprisoned the mind;
filled the world with ignorance;
persecuted the lovers of wisdom;
built the monasteries and convents;
made happiness a crime, investigation a sin, and self-reliance a blasphemy.

It has poisoned the springs of learning;
misdirected the energies of the world;
filled all countries with want;
housed the people in hovels;
fed them with famine;
and but for the efforts of a few brave Infidels it would have taken the world back to the midnight of barbarism, and left the heavens without a star.

-------

I do believe that life and property will be safer, that liberty will be surer, that homes will be sweeter, and life will be more joyous, and death less terrible, if the myth called Jehovah can be destroyed from the human mind."

That's Robert G. Ingersoll, Haran, and if you want to really understand our position, IMO he's a far better instructor than Nietzsche. (He called himself a pantheist, by the bye.)

As a human being, I am quite naturally opposed to the monstrosities that Ingersoll decries. We men are social animals; we live in groups, and what affects the groups affects us all. Christianity shows a clear pattern of inflicting damage on the groups which espouse it, as do many other religions.

I don't claim any absolute knowledge, or absolute bases for my ethics. I do claim, however, that to the best of my understanding and belief, my atheistic and humanist ethics are superior to Christian ones; Johnny has pointed out to you that we unbelievers have a far smaller relative percentage incarcerated in the US than do Christians, and that there are more divorces amongst Christians than among atheists. I add that there's a clear tendency for theistic belief to lessen as education increases; the more education you have, the more probable it is that you're a skeptic. It seems plain to me that my humanistic ethics are relatively better than Christian ones.

For all the above reasons, I feel justified to try to convince Christians that their faith is damaging to them, to their families and friends, to their societies, to their whole species.

I'm well aware that I'm in a fairly small minority who thinks these things. I'm also aware that I'm not all knowing, and I could be mistaken; still I have to live my life, make my decisions, judge what's right to do, by my own best knowledge and belief.

It's intellectually dishonest to avoid my individual responsibility to think freely and deeply on these deep and weighty matters, to only parrot the thoughts and beliefs of ancients who didn't have a hundredth the understanding of the universe that I do. I, like Newton, stand on the shoulders of giants; from that height it's only to be expected that I see better than even the giants who came before. It would be positively immoral of me to shut my eyes to this vast perspective, and just try to travel the same paths those with less vision travelled.

Speaking on a more personal level, I don't always agree with the methods of my fellow atheists on this board. Some, like Johnny, I think would be more effective at catching flies if he used a bit less vinegar and more honey for bait; but by and large, I fully support his ends.

We atheists avoid absolutes, and are IMO more humble than believers because we never claim to know what God wants us to do.

I see I've only asked one question in this post- and even that one wasn't phrased as a question. So let me repeat it. Who on this board do you think you have "retrieved from the clutches of such as [Johnny Scholar]"??

FatherMithras

No, it isn't. Because "hearing about something" is not empirical evidence. Thus, you have no more empirical evidence for the existence of god. Also, you may have heard of a record of what god has done, but more importantly, archaeologists have shown the supposed record to be false. hmmm...

FatherMithras

Whoops, didn't realize how long this thread was!

FatherMithras

To believe that we cannot base our morality on something other than an absolute is rather odd. Morality is an artificial, invented thing that societies make in themselves, and which each individual adjusts based on their lives. To pretend that God must exist because without him there's no objective morality is silly. It assumes there IS an objective morality, which is incorrect. Morality is a subjective idea, that's determined by individuals based on what they reason is important. If something is false (for example, your religion) we don't have to offer a better alternative. That's lunacy. If you want to drink poison because you say it's good for you, and I tell you not to, complaining that since I didn't give you another beverage poison is good is unreasonable. My morality is based upon what I perceive as best for society's psychological functioning as a whole and what will advance as the fastest, nothing more. But I don't pretend that's a natural truth. Why would I?

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding morality, we have two issues here, a secular argument, and a religious argument. Regarding a secular argument, the law is the law. It does make not make any distinction between Christians, atheists, agnostics, Deists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Whoever breaks the law breaks the law, and people of all world views break laws.

Now if Haran wishes to compare the percentage of atheists and professing Christians in prisons, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has statistics, which I have posted before, that show that a much higher percentage of professing Christians are in prisons than atheists. If Haran wishes to compare the divorce rate of Christians with atheists, Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. In Denmark, the divorce rate is higher among heterosexuals than among homosexuals. If Haran wishes to compare how much money Christians give away compared to atheists, I will tell him that if I believed that a God rewarded me for giving money away, I would give more away than I do now. The Bible says that each man shall be rewarded according to his works. Such a philosphy encourages Christians to give money away in order to get something back from God, which if I may make a pun is a "bankrupt" position. Skeptics who give money away frequently do so without expecting to get something in return. The satisfaction of helping people is frequently considered to be reward enough. That is a much superior position to the Christian position.

Of course, sophisticated and more sensible Christians will point out to Haran that initial salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, and that some of the most moral, loving, and decent people in the world are non-Christians. Yes, some atheists can be overly abusive, and I do not approve of that, but so can some Christians, including Haran. The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Regarding a secular argument, lest this unnecessary mudslinging that Haran started continue any farther, suffice it to say that morality is an INDIVIDUAL issue, NOT a COLLECTIVE ISSUE. Each person's morality should be judged on individual basis irrespective of their world view.

Regarding the religious issue, avoiding mudslinging is impossible because of the detestible God of the Bible. He has left his a lot of his followers to frequently wonder whether the Bible writers were speaking for God or for themselves. This issue is called the issue of Biblical inerrancy, an issue that inerrants always have trouble with when their skeptic opponents are well-pared. The Secular Web has lots of articles on inerrancy, but inerrancy can be easily discredited simply by stating that even today, with the Bible being taught in every country in the world, it would not be at all difficult for some skeptics to revise parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people. This would have been much easier centuries ago. Of course, we know that God is not really that interested in spreading the Gospel message because he has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without hearing it.

Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" How utterly detestible. Could a loving God not carry out his purposes without exhibiting such uncivilized behavior? Well of course he could. The same goes for God deliberately creating hurricanes and killing people with them. There is such a thing as the punishment fairly fitting the crime, but God will have none of that. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a philosophy that humans, including Christians, typically look down on, but Christians out of necessity make a convenient exception and sacrifice their integrity in God's case. Dissent of any kind is not allowed lest a believer end up in hell.

God's number one priority surely ought to be to do everything that he could in order to insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If God exists, he should send Jesus back to earth to make some more appearances, which would certainly convince some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced. Nostradamus, Edgar, Cayce, and other historical characters attracted a lot of followers based upon much less convincing evidence than the miracles that the Bible attributes to Jesus.

What could God possibly have to lose by providing humanity with a lot more evidence than he has? The correct answer is nothing at all. What would humans have to gain if God provided humanity with a lot more evidence than he has? The correct answer is a lot. This leaves rational minded and fair minded people with at least the following conclusions to make:

Since the Bible says that God is loving, unless we refine the word "love", God cannot possibly exist as described in the Bible. If he does not exist as described in the Bible, then he probably does not exist at all.

Or, if some version of the God of the Bible exists, he is not worthy of being accepted, and it would be impossible for rational minded and fair minded people to love him even if they wanted to in order to receive rewards from him.

Now of course, if God exists he could easily show up clear up these matters, but we know that he much prefers to allow humans to live with doubt, fear, and uncertainty. Jefferson Davis was the president of the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. He said that the Bible condones slavery. A brief appearance by God could have easily settled the issue and prevented many deaths, but God would have none of that. That would have been a loving thing to do, but we shouldn't expect God to act out of charaacter, now should we?

How large would the Christian church be today if no one was influenced by family and friends, and all young people were presented with all world views and allowed to make up their own minds? The correct answer is that the Christian church would be much smaller than it is today. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God'. The authors cite a lot of documented research that shows that in the U.S., the chief factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Regarding gender, a much higher percentage of women are Christians than men. Regarding geography, in South America, 90% of the people are Roman Catholics. In Iraq, probably at least 99% of the people are Muslims.

Strangely, Billy Graham endorses the book. He must not have any idea how skeptics use the book to their own advantage.

Not content to embarrass himself at this forum, of all places Haran has been over to the BC&H forum. It has been quite comical. Surely the Christians there wish he would go somewhere else.

Haran needs an attitude adjustment. In the NIV, 1 Corinthians 13:3-5 say "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs." What does Haran have against doing what God says that he should do? If the God of the Bible exists, Haran's continued and willful disobience to God might very well be sufficient grounds for God to send him to hell. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (NIV)

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (KJV)

Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (KJV)

Revelation 2:1-5 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (NIV)

Doug Shaver

A nihilist may think he is enlightened. That does not make him so. I think nihilism is a very unenlightened philosophy. Nihilism is irrational. Enlightened people are rational.

TomboyMom

Well, Haran, apparently we're confused. Is your morality objective or subjective?

AthenaAwakened

:notworthy:

Blissings to you Father

Peace