(April 23, 2012 at 9:33 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(April 23, 2012 at 9:31 am)frankiej Wrote: Why is this thread so long??

It is just some guy being a moron. ARGHH!!!

True that darlin' but it keeps people entertained..... how iz ya??

It just frustrates me. I'm good. Not spoken to you in aaaaagggeeess... or so it seems. How have you been?

(April 23, 2012 at 9:34 am)frankiej Wrote: It just frustrates me. I'm good. Not spoken to you in aaaaagggeeess... or so it seems. How have you been?

Yeah they get like that don't they??

I haz been goodish. But have had life smack me in the face on a few fronts.

But I"M STILL HERE!!

(April 23, 2012 at 7:59 am)Ace Otana Wrote:

(April 23, 2012 at 7:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote: As an atheist, just as me as a theist, you should be able to present rational evidence of your stance. I couldn't defend 'theism' either - because it's too wide a subject. I only defend Christianity.

That's complete nonsense Fr0d0. Why would I need to show evidence for my lack of belief in god? It doesn't make any sense.
It's like me saying that you must show evidence that you don't believe in the god Odin or Thor or any other higher power or whatever.

With respect Ace, fr0d0 is correct, although his point is slightly badly worded. I don't think he means "evidence of you not believing in god", but rather "evidence of why you don't believe in god". This evidence isn't physical, it's logical (i.e. the arguments for atheism). It is justifiable to ask people to present evidence for why they don't believe in Odin or Thor, since the concepts of Odin and Thor are very real, and need answers.

Quote:I was an atheist long before I was even aware of the word. Atheism simply means without theism. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It really doesn't.
Besides, evidence for my stance which is atheism. A lack of theism, lack of belief in god. What evidence do you expect to see? What would that evidence prove?

Yes, you were an atheist long before you even knew about God, but that was passive atheism. You are now an active atheist, since you fully understand the concept of God, and still disbelieve. There are reasons for that, and those reasons are the evidence fr0d0 is talking about.

My evidence is simply that I have never experienced God in any way that convinces me that he/she/it exists. There is no valid evidence I have come across that concludes undeniably that one exists. However, as an agnostic I admit that I do not know everything, and so my disbelief could be completely wrong. I also hold that since God is usually held as a supernatural being, it is impossible to measure or conclude anything about.

(April 23, 2012 at 9:56 am)Tiberius Wrote: With respect Ace, fr0d0 is correct, although his point is slightly badly worded. I don't think he means "evidence of you not believing in god", but rather "evidence of why you don't believe in god". This evidence isn't physical, it's logical (i.e. the arguments for atheism). It is justifiable to ask people to present evidence for why they don't believe in Odin or Thor, since the concepts of Odin and Thor are very real, and need answers.

I'm not to sure that atheism needs evidence unless theism presents evidence for a god. In either case, I just give the theist the quote from Stephen F. Roberts "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Quote:With respect Ace, fr0d0 is correct, although his point is slightly badly worded. I don't think he means "evidence of you not believing in god", but rather "evidence of why you don't believe in god". This evidence isn't physical, it's logical (i.e. the arguments for atheism). It is justifiable to ask people to present evidence for why they don't believe in Odin or Thor, since the concepts of Odin and Thor are very real, and need answers.

So he's only asking for the reasons of why I don't believe in god? Not quite how it looked but ok.....
Lack of convincing evidence, no credibility, explanatory power or value. No reason to believe it at all. So I guess that answers the question then.

Quote:Yes, you were an atheist long before you even knew about God

Not quite, I heard about god and the whole religious thing before I was aware of the word 'atheism'.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:40 am)Jireh Wrote: There is quit a substantial difference between

God created the universe from nothing, and
nothing created the universe......

You have stated God is omnipresent. Where was the 'nothing' you claim God created the universe from?

---

(April 23, 2012 at 7:51 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 23, 2012 at 5:23 am)Ace Otana Wrote: Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in god.
Why would atheism need evidence if it makes no claims? It's a stance.

Theism is a cover all term for believers in deity/ies, just as atheism is a cover all term for those lacking said belief. That does not mean that atheists lack any belief, or cannot be subdivided into "denominations" covering all kinds of superstitious and pseudo rational bullshit idealisms. As an atheist, just as me as a theist, you should be able to present rational evidence of your stance. I couldn't defend 'theism' either - because it's too wide a subject. I only defend Christianity.

Now stop playing games and answer the questions!

Christianity isn't a version or denomination of theism. Christians are a particular type of theist. Your theism is easily defended: you believe in God and we should reasonably take your word for that. Christianity makes rather more claims, and some of them are about more than your personal convictions.

On a site like this where the vast majority of atheists are rational skeptics and humanists there is a tendency to engage us on that level and we have a tendency to allow 'atheism' to be used as a short hand for those positions. It would be more accurate to use such terms instead of 'atheism', though.

(April 22, 2012 at 9:38 pm)Jireh Wrote: Like Jesus command, to love each other ? or the one in the old testament, we should not kill ? or which one do you refere to ?

The Golden rule which outdates your 10 Commandments by at least a thousand years.

You morons don't have a monopoly on morality, you're just completely ignorant of history & think you do.

Ah well, stupid is as stupid does.

---

(April 23, 2012 at 5:55 am)Jireh Wrote: credible

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Mine would be the massive body of evidence we do have about gods, and how none of it has anything to do with any "immaterial agent" of any kind whatsoever in any case. This, set beside our demonstrated explanations for the vast majority of what these gods are said to be/do/provide. Both of these things again supported by my refusal to plug a weasel word like "god" into whatever gap one wishes to invoke and then claim as truth or knowledge.

At no point has the idea of a god ever held merit. At no point has anyone been able to demonstrate that this baseless assertion has any relevance, value, or meaning to our existence in and of itself (the believer must supply all of those things from their own personal stores). At no point has the "god" explanation ever explained anything at all. It is completely and utterly useless.

On top of all of this......I also do not believe, have never believed, and barring these issues above being dealt with in an intelligent and thorough manner, I will never believe. To take this a step further, (since at this point I have only given reasons for my atheism) my anti-theism stems from the dry appraisal that if those issues above were handled in such a manner, I would still not bend my knee to the gods proposed by the faithful. It would no longer be an issue of belief, it would be an issue of my own personal sense of morality and goodness. I could not, in good conscience, sell out to the tiny little things they worship, even if the reward were infinite fucking paradise. Similarly, the devout earth-kissers who hold these imaginary creatures up as paragons of whatever may be important to them seem no different to me than the faeries they invoke as their masters. Before anyone feels that I am being too specific, it isn't just the christian god that would be designated as worthless and hostile by my metrics, but all gods. Creator gods, indifferent gods, anything at all that would be worthy of the title of "god" that for whatever reason. Simple things that I ascribe absolutely no moral value to in light of our natural existence take on a completely different shade of terrible the moment we invoke the supernatural.

Is that the sort of explanation that a theist might be looking for? Because I think I've offered it often enough, and I'm pretty sure that it is completely ignored or dismissed every time that I have. So......

Blueberry waffles (easily as strong an "explanation" as god...for anything, and as a bonus, I can show you one if you like).

(April 23, 2012 at 11:45 am)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Mine would be the massive body of evidence we do have about gods, and how none of it has anything to do with any "immaterial agent" of any kind whatsoever in any case. This, set beside our demonstrated explanations for the vast majority of what these gods are said to be/do/provide. Both of these things again supported by my refusal to plug a weasel word like "god" into whatever gap one wishes to invoke and then claim as truth or knowledge.

At no point has the idea of a god ever held merit. At no point has anyone been able to demonstrate that this baseless assertion has any relevance, value, or meaning to our existence in and of itself (the believer must supply all of those things from their own personal stores). At no point has the "god" explanation ever explained anything at all. It is completely and utterly useless.

On top of all of this......I also do not believe, have never believed, and barring these issues above being dealt with in an intelligent and thorough manner, I will never believe. To take this a step further, (since at this point I have only given reasons for my atheism) my anti-theism stems from the dry appraisal that if those issues above were handled in such a manner, I would still not bend my knee to the gods proposed by the faithful. It would no longer be an issue of belief, it would be an issue of my own personal sense of morality and goodness. I could not, in good conscience, sell out to the tiny little things they worship, even if the reward were infinite fucking paradise. Similarly, the devout earth-kissers who hold these imaginary creatures up as paragons of whatever may be important to them seem no different to me than the faeries they invoke as their masters. Before anyone feels that I am being too specific, it isn't just the christian god that would be designated as worthless and hostile by my metrics, but all gods. Creator gods, indifferent gods, anything at all that would be worthy of the title of "god" that for whatever reason. Simple things that I ascribe absolutely no moral value to in light of our natural existence take on a completely different shade of terrible the moment we invoke the supernatural.

Is that the sort of explanation that a theist might be looking for? Because I think I've offered it often enough, and I'm pretty sure that it is completely ignored or dismissed every time that I have. So......

Blueberry waffles (easily as strong an "explanation" as god...for anything, and as a bonus, I can show you one if you like).

---