Atheists, What's the point?

[quatona]

Therefore, I will use the dictionary definition when writing in general, but when specifically talking to an individual, I will ask them what they mean by "atheist".

Yes, I have noticed that you prefer to address notions that hardly anyone (and even less anyone here on this board) holds.
You don´t want to talk to really existing people about the views they really hold, and we both know why that is.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your dislike for atheism causes you to paint with a wide brush, that even your fellow theists get paint on them.

If a person commits a wrong, they are guilty of the wrong, theist or not. Theists have committed many atrocities in the name of their respective religions. I have no problem speaking the truth.

Still, you cannot show that people are motivated by what they don't believe in.

Would you like some quotes by atheistic communist torturers who tortured Christians and thanked the God in whom they did not believe that they could mutilate helpless people with impunity and without fear of retribution?

Do you ever invite him here to see how how your cut-and-pasting is received?

No, he simply does not have the time to participate in internet forum discussions. I am sure you can understand why.

Seeing that you have admitted having an interest in his web site, your repeated posting of links to his web site would constitute spamming, and would be in violation of the site rules. If you care.

If I am spamming, then let the administrators inform me. It will be their decision to make, not yours.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I have noticed that you prefer to address notions that hardly anyone (and even less anyone here on this board) holds.
You don´t want to talk to really existing people about the views they really hold, and we both know why that is.

I guess when I dialogue with you, I am dialoguing with computer generated responses then, since, as you say, I dont want to talk to people who really exist. That may explain why many of your replies are the way they are, you know, mechanical. Thanks for letting me know. I was actually beginning to think that you were a real person who really had no dealings with right and wrong doing. Your views make much more sense now knowing they are not human.

 

[quatona]

I guess when I dialogue with you, I am dialoguing with computer generated responses then

Don´t guess. Your guesses so far have been notoriously mistaken.

, since, as you say, I dont want to talk to people who really exist.

Like so often, you stopped reading before the end of my sentence (or you preferred to omit a crucial part of it). That´s not what I said.

That may explain why many of your replies are the way they are, you know, mechanical. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks for letting me know how you generate your misconstruals as to what people allegedly have said.

I was actually beginning to think that you were a real person who really had no dealings with right and wrong doing. Your views make much more sense now knowing they are not human.

You started presenting your diatribe as a guess, and now you claim to know?

 

[Elioenai26]

Don´t guess. Your guesses so far have been notoriously mistaken.

Like so often, you stopped reading before the end of my sentence (or you preferred to omit a crucial part of it). That´s not what I said.


Thanks for letting me know how you generate your misconstruals as to what people allegedly have said.

You started presenting your diatribe as a guess, and now you claim to know?

So you misspoke when you said:

You don´t want to talk to really existing people about the views they really hold, and we both know why that is.

If you did not mean to say that, then I would like for you to clarify it for me.

 

[quatona]

So you misspoke when you said:

You don´t want to talk to really existing people about the views they really hold, and we both know why that is.

No, I didn´t misspeak
No, you misquoted me when you left out crucial parts of my statement in order to make it look like saying something it didn´t and wasn´t meant to say.
Please stop being so disingenious. Maybe your allegedly objective morality allows, condones or even dictates your dishonesty - my subjective morality doesn´t.

If you did not mean to say that, then I would like for you to clarify it for me.

Above (and unlike the post before) you managed to quote my entire statement. That´s exactly what I meant to say.
The difference between:
You don´t want to talk to really existing people about the views they really hold.
and You don´t want to talk to really existing people.
should be obvious, particularly since your entire response to this statement wouldn´t have made sense had you given my actual complete statement.

 

[Davian]

If a person commits a wrong, they are guilty of the wrong, theist or not. Theists have committed many atrocities in the name of their respective religions. I have no problem speaking the truth.

On what basis to you have to consider things "wrong", if the even actions of those responsible for genocide don't preclude one from entering heaven? Or does that only apply to theists of the 'correct' religion?

Would you like some quotes by atheistic communist torturers who tortured Christians and thanked the God in whom they did not believe that they could mutilate helpless people with impunity and without fear of retribution?

Different goalposts. I said, show that people are motivated by what they don't believe in.

No, he simply does not have the time to participate in internet forum discussions. I am sure you can understand why.

Would you invite him if you had success here?

If I am spamming, then let the administrators inform me. It will be their decision to make, not yours.

Let your conscience be your guide. Where do you get your morals from again?

 

[Tnmusicman]

Craig has been using the same arguments for the past 20 years, but not because they represent a strong case for theism. He uses them because they are all that he has, supplemented by appeals to incredulity and emotion.

ALL he has?? It's MORE than he NEEDS. That's probably why they haven't really changed in 20 years. They are sound enough to avoid being refuted.

 

[Gadarene]

ALL he has?? It's MORE than he NEEDS. That's probably why they haven't really changed in 20 years. They are sound enough to avoid being refuted.

Or maybe he's just not bright enough to learn when he's been rumbled.

 

[Davian]

Or maybe he's just not bright enough to learn when he's been rumbled.

I liken it to the analogy of belief being a house of cards built inside of a fortress. If WLC admits wrong somewhere - anywhere - it all falls down. He is stuck with those arguments, as bad as they are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ALL he has?? It's MORE than he NEEDS. That's probably why they haven't really changed in 20 years. They are sound enough to avoid being refuted.

God is not good - Part 1 - William lane Craig - YouTube

 

[variant]

What possible purpose is there for convincing someone God isn't real?

Generally, it has to do with all the trouble believers cause when they start enforcing a vision on their world that they say comes from their God instead of themselves.

For the most part, I don't mind that you have what I consider a fantasy that makes you feel better, makes you do things that are good and strive to be a better person, but it also tends to breed a kind of thinking that I will not tolerate when it gets beyond that point.

At the root of it though, I want human beings to come up with good reasons to do good things and be better persons without the psychological trap of having an invisible man tell you what to do through a delusional congregational experience.

In essence I want you to grow up and start thinking for yourself.

I want humanity to grow up.

Even if you were correct (which I don't believe, but let's pretend), at best you would be like a playground bully who tells another kid that his imaginary friend isn't real

You can call me a bully all you like, but I am not the one who tells small children that the creator of the universe will have them tortured forever if they don't submit to a belief system of my choosing.

 

[Tiberius]

I consider an argument strong when the objector to the argument in order to avoid the conclusion which follows from its premises, is forced to admit that the universe brought itself into existence.

I'm sorry, where did I ever do that?

BTW, I'd call an argument failed when the person using it has to abandon one of their premises (everything that exists needs to be created) in order to come to their conclusion (except God, he didn't need to be created, despite being more complex than anything else.)

For an intelligent person to be reduced to holding such an irrational position in order to avoid the conclusion of a philosophical argument, I would call that a strong argument. You would not of course because you, at all costs, cannot accept the theistic implications of the conclusion of the argument, namely that the universe has a cause for its existence. So you dismiss the argument as weak, when atheistic professors, and scholars, astrophysicists and cosmologists do not even dare to hold such a position. Do you want me to believe you know more than they?

What are you saying? That atheistic professors et al believe that there was some creator entity?

I am talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument by the way, which is one of many arguments.

The Kalam argument fails. At best, it only shows that some creative force was needed. it does NOT show that such a force was a god.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I consider an argument strong when the objector to the argument in order to avoid the conclusion which follows from its premises, is forced to admit that the universe brought itself into existence.

For an intelligent person to be reduced to holding such an irrational position in order to avoid the conclusion of a philosophical argument, I would call that a strong argument. You would not of course because you, at all costs, cannot accept the theistic implications of the conclusion of the argument, namely that the universe has a cause for its existence. So you dismiss the argument as weak, when atheistic professors, and scholars, astrophysicists and cosmologists do not even dare to hold such a position. Do you want me to believe you know more than they?

I am talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument by the way, which is one of many arguments.

No one has to propose alternatives to the Kalam Cosmological argument to show that it is completely illogical. Nor does the KCA actually provide any evidence that a "first cause" must be a god, let alone the Christian god. By these two points alone it fails any possible definition of "evidence".

 

[Davian]

Current usage of the word atheism varies from atheist to atheist. When atheists redefine what atheism means and use it to shirk any burden for defending their godless views, then they undermine their own position.

Therefore, I will use the dictionary definition when writing in general, but when specifically talking to an individual, I will ask them what they mean by "atheist".

Can you name the atheists here at CF that agree with WLC's definition of atheism? And agree that it is a truth claim, as WLC portrays it?

 

[horrace99]

@madaz

and atheist with the pic of the fsm hmmmm why am i not suprised

 

[horrace99]

@ Ana the Ist

my life SUCKED when I was an atheist because life was just a meaningless accident and I had no purpose to exist but Jesus showed me that life does have meaning.Jesus is the only way to true life and joy

 

[Tiberius]

@ Ana the Ist

my life SUCKED when I was an atheist because life was just a meaningless accident and I had no purpose to exist but Jesus showed me that life does have meaning.Jesus is the only way to true life and joy

Sorry to hear that you felt that way, but as an atheist I make my own meaning for life, and it works fine for me.

 

[horrace99]

SOME but not all atheists have been raised in awful religious homes which has built an anti-theist wall around them.They feel the the need to make people like them so they won't be lonley.Some of them assume that if they insult a Christian that they have triumphed over something that had a negative effect on they're childhood.Some atheists see all Christians as the same and desire to destroy they're faith in God in any way they can.

SOME atheists are just sad lonely empty souls that must destroy what has been and obstacle for them but some of them break free of they're grudge against religion and get along with religious people.Others however are to caught up in the psat and refuse to lose that grudge until they triumph even though they never will.

not generalizing but alot of atheists i know are just like that

 

[Davian]

SOME but not all atheists have been raised in awful religious homes which has built an anti-theist wall around them.They feel the the need to make people like them so they won't be lonley.Some of them assume that if they insult a Christian that they have triumphed over something that had a negative effect on they're childhood.Some atheists see all Christians as the same and desire to destroy they're faith in God in any way they can.

SOME atheists are just sad lonely empty souls that must destroy what has been and obstacle for them but some of them break free of they're grudge against religion and get along with religious people.Others however are to caught up in the psat and refuse to lose that grudge until they triumph even though they never will.

not generalizing but alot of atheists i know are just like that

I've never met any like that. Until recently, I thought of religion as just a complicated hobby that others did.