HelenM

I'm astonished you find it astonishing

Atheists have minds and emotions; I imagine that many atheists enjoy loving and being loved. If not all of them. Why wouldn't they do what they enjoy? Since they have no divine imperatives they are the last ones to cut off what they might enjoy because they are convinced it's "God's will" that they not have some particular pleasure or other, because "God says it's wrong".

They are free to enjoy what they want to without worrying about whether God is upset by it...they of all people should have the most fun, in that regard...wouldn't you think?

love
Helen

Theli

David...

Pretty much, yes.

There was no question.
I simply stated that you, by definition are a strong atheist. The definitions were taken from sources on the internet. You are free to refute this. But all you have done is trying to dodge my claim. Does that mean you are agreeing with me, but you deny it?

Yes it does. But in this issue we were discussing weither god was unreal or not. Since you haven't given me any real qualities to your god, then I must assume that he's unreal in all meanings/aspects.
So as a being that has no real attributes whatsoever it must exist only inside your head.
As you haven't aqcuired any real attributes to god from the reality around us.
He is fictional.
An unreal being with nothing that ties him to our reality.

The position of your car is based on prior knowledge. The only assumption on your side is that it's still there after you left it.
If there was no knowledge at all, you could just aswell look for your car on the moon.
So, knowledge is a very important part of belief.
It's also a very important part in making valid assumptions.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

David...

Jesus was not made of atoms?

Haven't we already gone through this before.
A living human is not considered by atheists to be a cluster of specific atoms. It is not the individual particles that determines the individual person.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Jobar

I have an announcement to make people! Our friend David is a fideist- perhaps the very first one I have met. He has no factual evidence for God's existence. He has no logical proof which he stakes his belief on. He purely and simply believes.

Like a solipsist, I don't think there is any argument which will move him- he will just nod and smile, and go right on with his unsupported and empty faith.

So, I wish to make one more point, then I will leave him in his bubble.

David: God is not real in the sense that physical things are real. God is real in a sense that physical things are not real. Though these two sentences seem to contradict in reality they do not.

Jobar: The Invisible Pink Unicorn is not real in the sense that physical things are real. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is real in a sense that physical things are not real. Though these two sentences seem to contradict in reality they do not.

JOhn BARnes, Jr.

AtlanticCitySlave

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but it's obvious to me why David's entire argument(s), overall, fail (yes, even ignoring the fact he ignores most of what is said and how fallacious his arguments are).
If no one has noticed, David's entire belief structure is based on the belief in God, but he has already admitted that he does not "know" God exists and that he can't prove God exists, but rather it is based on "faith". Faith, I presume, means something along the lines of belief without reason to David, since if it didn't it would be odd to have faith rather than just good reason(s) for something. The problem of course is that one really can't associate with David since he has given up being reasonable for faith, unless he can defend that it's rational to have faith.
Since his whole basis is God, which he believes on faith, it's clear that no matter what his arguments will fail, since his underlying foundation is deeply flawed, whether or not his conclusions end up to be true.
Ironically, David's whole belief structure centers around faith, and yet he demands of everyone in here to talk about "objective evidence", nothing subjective, or basically nothing that makes him look inconsistent over and over again, yet these same standards do not apply to himself at all. He has asserted things that he simply does not know and cannot prove, like his comments concerning the soul, it's connection to the mind, etc. He somehow knows this, but then a little later on can't answer a question because he acknowledges we know so little about the brain (WTF?).
Since I don't have patience (or time) for people like David, and I commend all of you who do, this seems like a losing battle. David seems completely unaware of science, naturalistic foundations, what it means to "know" something in philosophical terminology, linguistics, etc. And, if he's not, he seems completely unwilling to see his own flaws. Earlier someone said he was arguing from ignorance and, at least from his response, it doesn't seem that he even knows what an argument from ignorance is.
Concerning the positive attributes of atheism, he refuses to accept there are any, and seems to mock anyone who points out the positives. Even if there were no positive attributes at all it wouldn't matter, which he doesn't seem to realize, since atheism does not live or die on the checks in the positive column of how we get along in life, but rather by the reasonableness of the belief (or lack of one).

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

madmax2976

There are no holy scriptures of atheism. These are positive assessments that can be derived from atheism depending on a person's assessment of the implications of atheism. Thats what you said you were looking for and that is what I provided.

<strong> It took a little while figure out what you were asking for in the context of the discussion.

<strong> "Divine athority" is irrelevant. You asked about the positives that could be derived from atheism. Since it provides a foundation for my Humanism, love, empathy, and caring are some of those positives, among the other things I mentioned.

<strong> Allowed by whom? Forbidden by whom? Just as some people derive hate and biogotry from Christianity, they could do so from atheism. These things are a a subjective judgement call no matter which view you have, atheism, Christianity, Hinduism or whatever.

You asked about positives, not about guarantees that those positives would always be assessed from any of those views.

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: I wonder what that meaning and purpose is, considering that as soon as life has departed the memory of the individual begins to fade and soon enough all that person accomplished, all of his/her hopes and dreams, all his/her beliefs and opinions and everything that made that an individual a person are forgotten.

What sort of meaning and purpose do atheists find in their own lives?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

[quote]They are free to enjoy what they want to without worrying about whether God is upset by it...they of all people should have the most fun, in that regard...wouldn't you think? {/QUOTE]

David: Not in the least. Atheists cannot enjoy love because there is always a lingering doubt about the nature of their love: Perhaps love is a biological response rather than an ethical decision made by a free will.

I suspect that for atheists all of love is purely physical as it cannot possibly possess a spiritual component.

Perhaps I am mistaken. If so, atheists should define love as they understand it and practice it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: Of course I care about you, Helen. You can be certain of that.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Theli,

David: You can call God "unreal", "fictional" and "imaginary" but in the final analysis you are merely stating your own opinion of God.

Sincerely,

David Mathews