Why I'm Anti-Theistic

[Archaeopteryx]

I haven't used any necessary language. Note that I've said that it can be a comforting thought. Not that it always is a comforting thought.

Exactly. It can be, for you maybe, and you're a theist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

yes, truth is indeed important.
so, let's have a little truth shall we?
atheists and creationists are in the same boat, they are opposite equals.
they both believe that which cannot be proved.

Such as?

along these lines i consider myself an agnostic, and i feel i'm reasonably open minded enough to consider the possibility of a god no matter how ridiculous the concept seems
the prospect of a god may not be as absurd as you may think.
the origin of life on this planet is one reason.

Why is the origin of life one reason?

regardless of what you may think, this problem has not been solved, and furthermore it isn't in any danger of being solved any time soon.

And? In what way does that indicate Goddidit?

the placebo effect is another reason, a faith based condition that has been conclusively proven over and over and over.

?

are there other reasons?
prayer, or meditation, has bee proven to increase blood flow to the brain.

So what?

 

[Tree of Life]

So do governments.

I don't have any statistics handy, but my impression is that most atheists aren't anarchists. If atheists really were so concerned about laws and punishments, I'd expect far more atheist anarchists.

What you write seems far more like some slam against atheists from Christian sources seeking to discredit them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

 

[whois]

Such as?

such as god.
science has been unable to prove, or disprove this concept.

Why is the origin of life one reason?

the answer to this is as simple as the answer above.
science has been unable to prove that life comes from lifelessness.

And? In what way does that indicate Goddidit?

i'm not saying it does.

?

i'm amazed that haven't heard of the placebo effect.
it's more likely that you HAVE heard of it, but are unwilling to accept the implications of it.

So what?

ignoring this stuff doesn't say much for your objectivity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

such as god.
science has been unable to prove, or disprove this concept.

So why should we believe it?

the answer to this is as simple as the answer above.
science has been unable to prove that life comes from lifelessness.

Again, how does it indicate that a deity was involved?

i'm amazed that haven't heard of the placebo effect.
it's more likely that you HAVE heard of it, but are unwilling to accept the implications of it.

I have heard of it. I have never heard this asinine argument based on it though.

ignoring this stuff doesn't say much for your objectivity.

It's irrelevant. So what if prayer increases blood flow to the brain? How is that evidence for a god?

 

[whois]

So why should we believe it?

what you believe is your business.
the facts of the matter is there is no proof either way.

Again, how does it indicate that a deity was involved?

i am simply showing that there is no proof either way in regards to a god.

I have heard of it. I have never heard this asinine argument based on it though.

of course not, because you don't want to accept the fact that belief/ faith can be a very powerful thing.

It's irrelevant. So what if prayer increases blood flow to the brain? How is that evidence for a god?

i am suggesting that there is something going on here that's more than some type of physical law.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

what you believe is your business.
the facts of the matter is there is no proof either way.
i am simply showing that there is no proof either way in regards to a god.

So why should we believe it?

of course not, because you don't want to accept the fact that belief/ faith can be a very powerful thing.

I acknowledge that faith can be a very powerful thing. It doesn't follow that propositions believed on faith are therefore true.

i am suggesting that there is something going on here that's more than some type of physical law.

You haven't presented anything convincing in that regard.

 

[paulm50]

such as god.
science has been unable to prove, or disprove this concept.

Science need only prove or disprove your concept of god. Ang being we don't know about, is. Something we don't know about and nobody has written about it.

So if you're waiting for someone to prove any god who has spoken, inspired, etc. Us. You're in for disappointment.

A god like being existing isn't a debate.

The debate is whether your god exists, spoke and speaks to man and the books about him are right. And atheist win that debate every time.

 

[Poor Beggar]

so I'm not going to pretend anymore.

Doesn't this suggest you never really respected others in the first place? Regardless of how you feel theists and Christians have treated you, wouldn't you want to start with respecting others and not simply pretending, followed by giving up on people when the pretending doesn't work?

 

[dms1972]

Hey whats the problem, here are people who either don't believe or don't know for sure there is a God? Right, thats were some seem to be at, maybe they believe in something. They never said they believed in nothing. They say they lack a belief in God. Near enough the most honest thing I read on these forums. If they believe in their wife, or their cat, fair enough I say.

Let's drop the 'psychological warfare' and get back to discussing something of worth, and not just wrecking our brains to come up with a new thread question.

In the movement from non-belief that something is true to belief that it is true, it is not always easy to re-capitulate the steps by which we moved, particularly if one regularly re-visits the question to help others. And particularly in christian conversion which rests on witness and testimony, and the power of the Gospel.

Say one reads something like Surprised by Joy, its one mans intellectual journey, the reasons are cumulative. But someone reading it won't be following the same route, or become convinced in the same manner necessarily that christianity is true. Something more than abstract reasoning is always involved. The best thing to do if not convinced is carry on with life for a bit, and let your conscience guide.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Hey whats the problem, here are people who either don't believe or don't know there is a God? Right, thats were they are at, maybe they believe in something. They never said they believed in nothing. They say they lack a belief in God. Near enough the most honest thing I read on these forums.

Let's drop the 'psychological warfare' and get back to discussing something of worth, and not just wrecking our brains to come up with a new thread question.

Just to be clear - Atheists don't believe in any gods - not just your idea of one. _

 

[dms1972]

And some christians don't believe in the god atheists disbelieve in.

Let others believe what seems good to them. Some people simply (such as myself) don't like being defined by others.

Its one of the reasons I argued that some things are not properly called Faith positions.

 

[whatgoeshere]

Interesting that most who pay this attention are godless themselves.
Atheist = no god=godless.

The next statement should be: And I have no idea why I am a long term member on a pro-theist website.

 

[whois]

Just to be clear - Atheists don't believe in any gods - not just your idea of one. _

actually, atheists believe there is no god, and their minds aren't even open to the possibility.

i don't believe in any gods either, but i'm certainly open minded enough to give justice where justice is due.

 

[SkyWriting]

However, I'm not going to concede that any religious beliefs deserve respect. Respect is earned...not handed out to everyone/everything only to be withdrawn in anger.

. Which guy deserves respect, left or right?

 

[asherahSamaria]

actually, atheists believe there is no god, and their minds aren't even open to the possibility.

i don't believe in any gods either, but i'm certainly open minded enough to give justice where justice is due.

That is incorrect. Most atheists do not say "there are no gods" but remain unconvinced by any of the god claims. That is an important distinction that has been made clear many times. Please do not misrepresent it.

 

[paulm50]

actually, atheists believe there is no god, and their minds aren't even open to the possibility.

i don't believe in any gods either, but i'm certainly open minded enough to give justice where justice is due.

Not true. We are open to the idea there is one. Just not one that has spoken to anyone claiming it.

If you want to debate whether your version of a god is the right one, we're happy to oblige.

Prove there's a god and we will listen. Real proof of course because there are so many claims, it's easy to just claim you fell, speak, hear, know he's here.

 

[whois]

That is incorrect. Most atheists do not say "there are no gods" but remain unconvinced by any of the god claims. That is an important distinction that has been made clear many times. Please do not misrepresent it.

actually it's quite correct.
there is a BIG difference between being unconvinced (agnostic) of a god, and outright stating (atheist) there is no god.
agnostics are at least willing to open mindedly explore the possibilities, whereas atheists are outright adamant in their belief.
please do not misrepresent it.

i am an agnostic, i am willing to see how some evidence might suggest a god, whereas atheists will dismiss it.

furthermore, what kind of human mind would you find the most rational?
one with a semblance of sanctity or one where there is absolutely none?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

"Stuck in the past" in what way? Time travel, isnt that impossible, or do you mean the mod cons of atheism - hoovers, dishwashers etc - arent noticably there?

... That deserves no response

But as for myself while I understand being anti-theistic I've burned out already. I just can't get too into religious debates as I used to. I'm just atheist now. Alotta my friends are religious and we don't let that get in the way of our relationship.

Religion, the way I see it, is a pacifier. Outdated old common sense life lessons that most civilized societies already knew or have improved. But some believe it makes them better as a person and I say "whatever" now. Yes I think it's as useless as an appendix (even more accurate if you think a little about that analogy) but it's not the driving societal force it used to be so.

 

[asherahSamaria]

actually it's quite correct.
there is a BIG difference between being unconvinced (agnostic) of a god, and outright stating (atheist) there is no god.
agnostics are at least willing to open mindedly explore the possibilities, whereas atheists are outright adamant in their belief.
please do not misrepresent it.

i am an agnostic, i am willing to see how some evidence might suggest a god, whereas atheists will dismiss it.

furthermore, what kind of human mind would you find the most rational?
one with a semblance of sanctity or one where there is absolutely none?

Wrong again.

Gnostic relates to knowledge - an agnostic does not "know".
Atheists do not "believe".

Please read a dictionary